Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
Perhaps he could take his army out of Ukraine and avoid having it all blown up. That's the most win he seems likely to get.
Now it looks like Ukraine are holding, there's no way that they aren't going to continue getting 'presents' from the West. What are all those stockpiled missiles for if not taking out the Russian army? Why bother waiting to use it yourself when someone else seems to have a very good idea what to do with it?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
The quality of the russian trolls are about as good as their tanks. Even a Leon powered by Nyetimber Rose and a flint dildo can take them down with ease.
I did notice an article that the Americans are apparently reassessing the Russian military given their performance in Ukraine. I should imagine it will be quite short and sweet. e.g. Russia = crap.
We must not let our hatred of Putin blind us to what can realistically be done about him And remember in the meantime the Ukrainians are suffering beyond our comprehension
We can realistically give Ukraine the weapons they are asking for. I know you think it would be fair for Putin to get some kind of consolation prize for his failed invasion, but the real world doesn't work like that.
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
So what you're saying is a withdrawal is a win/win/win? Deprives Ukraine of a bunch of Nazi occupiers, America of a strategic victory and the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich? Hopefully along with Bortnikov, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoigu.
I mean, that's an exquisite scenario. What's not to like?
Putin must withdraw now!
Well why don't you tell him that...I'm sure he would oblige...unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that...
Hey, you're the one who's saying that, not me. I'm just pointing out the logic of your remarks.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Training for the last is easy, you just take a knap.
The quality of the russian trolls are about as good as their tanks. Even a Leon powered by Nyetimber Rose and a flint dildo can take them down with ease.
I did notice an article that the Americans are apparently reassessing the Russian military given their performance in Ukraine. I should imagine it will be quite short and sweet. e.g. Russia = crap.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
They do, but the translation was off and it came out as flint pizzas and pineapple dildos.
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
Perhaps he could take his army out of Ukraine and avoid having it all blown up. That's the most win he seems likely to get.
Now it looks like Ukraine are holding, there's no way that they aren't going to continue getting 'presents' from the West. What are all those stockpiled missiles for if not taking out the Russian army? Why bother waiting to use it yourself when someone else seems to have a very good idea what to do with it?
Unfortunately that means the torture and rape of countless Ukrainian innocents....a heavy price to pay...the Russians will only get more brutal
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
The slaughter of innocents in Ukraine is horrifying...we can't just stand by and let it happen...the Russians are going to torture brutally and kill many people trust me
Why "trust me" as if you had privileged insight? Personally I think posters like you are just wankers and by no means in the pay of Moscow. But a little part of me thinks: you are Fiedler, so who is Mundt?
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
The slaughter of innocents in Ukraine is horrifying...we can't just stand by and let it happen...the Russians are going to torture brutally and kill many people trust me
Why "trust me" as if you had privileged insight? Personally I think posters like you are just wankers and by no means in the pay of Moscow. But a little part of me thinks: you are Fiedler, so who is Mundt?
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
So what you're saying is a withdrawal is a win/win/win? Deprives Ukraine of a bunch of Nazi occupiers, America of a strategic victory and the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich? Hopefully along with Bortnikov, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoigu.
I mean, that's an exquisite scenario. What's not to like?
Putin must withdraw now!
Well why don't you tell him that...I'm sure he would oblige...unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that...
Hey, you're the one who's saying that, not me. I'm just pointing out the logic of your remarks.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
The slaughter of innocents in Ukraine is horrifying...we can't just stand by and let it happen...the Russians are going to torture brutally and kill many people trust me
So you'd be in favour of sending heavy weapons so that the Ukrainians can drive them out?
I would be if that would end the war...but all I think would happen then is Putin gets more aggressive and we could see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost
Baring in mind what's happened in Mariupol, there are probably over 100,000 civilians dead already. we will only ever have a broadly accurate number if Putin loses. Putin will 'ethnically cleanse' or Politically Cleanse' all the areas he is left with at the end.
I think your idea of holding back support so that Ukraine has to give in discussing. I don't know if you are paid by Putin's machine to post here, or whether you are naturally a 'Useful idiot' but I disagree wholeheartedly with your position.
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
So what you're saying is a withdrawal is a win/win/win? Deprives Ukraine of a bunch of Nazi occupiers, America of a strategic victory and the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich? Hopefully along with Bortnikov, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoigu.
I mean, that's an exquisite scenario. What's not to like?
Putin must withdraw now!
Well why don't you tell him that...I'm sure he would oblige...unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that...
Hey, you're the one who's saying that, not me. I'm just pointing out the logic of your remarks.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
So you think he's giving up Crimea? That's good news, if unexpected.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Works both ways mind, the reason I know for certain @Heathener is not a troll is, she picked up an obscure reference to a slightly wacky work of mycology.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Works both ways mind, the reason I know for certain @Heathener is not a troll is, she picked up an obscure reference to a slightly wacky work of mycology.
Showing that your knowledge makes you a fungi to be around.
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
So what you're saying is a withdrawal is a win/win/win? Deprives Ukraine of a bunch of Nazi occupiers, America of a strategic victory and the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich? Hopefully along with Bortnikov, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoigu.
I mean, that's an exquisite scenario. What's not to like?
Putin must withdraw now!
Well why don't you tell him that...I'm sure he would oblige...unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that...
Hey, you're the one who's saying that, not me. I'm just pointing out the logic of your remarks.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
So you think he's giving up Crimea? That's good news, if unexpected.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
The slaughter of innocents in Ukraine is horrifying...we can't just stand by and let it happen...the Russians are going to torture brutally and kill many people trust me
So you'd be in favour of sending heavy weapons so that the Ukrainians can drive them out?
I would be if that would end the war...but all I think would happen then is Putin gets more aggressive and we could see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost
Baring in mind what's happened in Mariupol, there are probably over 100,000 civilians dead already. we will only ever have a broadly accurate number if Putin loses. Putin will 'ethnically cleanse' or Politically Cleanse' all the areas he is left with at the end.
I think your idea of holding back support so that Ukraine has to give in discussing. I don't know if you are paid by Putin's machine to post here, or whether you are naturally a 'Useful idiot' but I disagree wholeheartedly with your position.
Even with extra support you would just end up with a war of attrition and hundreds of thousands of innocents sacrificed
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
Interestingly Hitchens in the most today says the USA is using the Ukraine war as a proxy war to drive Russia back to the stone age....
Good.
Maybe good for the USA but not good for the people of Ukraine as the Russians kill and torture their men and lay waste to much of the country...
So the correct strategy is for Putin to withdraw, as that lets the Ukrainians off and deprives the Yanks of a major strategic victory.
Or, indeed, he could just not have invaded in the first place and therefore not handed the US their greatest strategic advance since the fall of the Berlin Wall on a plate all by his little fat self.
Realpolitik my friend...Putin can't withdraw it will be the end of him thus we have to look towards a ceasefire....give Putin a small win he can sell...then strangle the Russian economy with sanctions
So what you're saying is a withdrawal is a win/win/win? Deprives Ukraine of a bunch of Nazi occupiers, America of a strategic victory and the world of Vladimir Vladimirovich? Hopefully along with Bortnikov, Medvedev, Lavrov and Shoigu.
I mean, that's an exquisite scenario. What's not to like?
Putin must withdraw now!
Well why don't you tell him that...I'm sure he would oblige...unfortunately the real world doesn't work like that...
Hey, you're the one who's saying that, not me. I'm just pointing out the logic of your remarks.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
So you think he's giving up Crimea? That's good news, if unexpected.
He will no more give up crimea than I will give up Jakehead.
I think we should hear @PaulD out. If he thinks we should come up with ways of sparing innocent Ukrainians from the brunt of the fighting, perhaps we should aim to open up a second front by fomenting an insurgency within Russia or Belarus to distract their forces?
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it too. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
And I have news for you, but better now than when you are writing your funeral wishes in your will. It's been illegal to be buried "in" a church, C of E or not, since the mid-C19. (Apart from CHurchill etc.).
Churchill isn't buried in a church. His grave is outside in the graveyard of Bladon Church from which you can see Blenheim Palace where he was born. It is an incredibly moving grave as well. A massive plain white marble with his name inscribed on it.
Quite right to correct me. I'd already emended my posting earlier as it happens.
I was quite taken aback to find it many years ago on a hike from Woodstock along Akeman Street and then by Stonesfield and Bladon back to the bus. Commendably plain, at his insistence I believe.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
Well I suppose there are 2 sides to every story...let them say their piece even if its rubbish
Hmm, I see you think it's very important to have a "ceasefire now by any means possible and end this war" and a "negotiated settlement which gives Putin a win he can sell to the Russians".
You've got a tough gig, but you need to be more subtle...
The slaughter of innocents in Ukraine is horrifying...we can't just stand by and let it happen...the Russians are going to torture brutally and kill many people trust me
So you'd be in favour of sending heavy weapons so that the Ukrainians can drive them out?
I would be if that would end the war...but all I think would happen then is Putin gets more aggressive and we could see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives lost
Baring in mind what's happened in Mariupol, there are probably over 100,000 civilians dead already. we will only ever have a broadly accurate number if Putin loses. Putin will 'ethnically cleanse' or Politically Cleanse' all the areas he is left with at the end.
I think your idea of holding back support so that Ukraine has to give in discussing. I don't know if you are paid by Putin's machine to post here, or whether you are naturally a 'Useful idiot' but I disagree wholeheartedly with your position.
Even with extra support you would just end up with a war of attrition and hundreds of thousands of innocents sacrificed
Your position is illogical. Without this 'war of attrition' all of Ukraine would have been overrun already. The reason the Russian army is withdrawing is not because they've got what they want - that was Ukraine as a whole - but because they've had their arses handed to them. Capturing a little bit more of the Donbass, even if they can, would be a feeble result for the Russians. This is an epic humiliation and even liars as fluent and delusional as Putin and Lavrov are going to be hard pressed to spin it any other way.
And I say again, what we are seeing now as they retreat is what would have happened from Luhansk to Lviv if the Ukrainians hadn't fought. Only for years and on a much larger scale.
And the Ukrainians know it too. They've not forgotten the Holodomor or the Soviet reconquest of 1944. Nor have they forgiven.
And that's why they're fighting, and however terrible the punishment, will keep doing so. Whether you approve or not.
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Russia will not give up the donbass...if their backs are to the walk chemical weapons or tactical nukes will be used...your argument falls apart here as Putin can't afford a defeat
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
Do we know who those 16 were?
Just double checked my facts, and no only 5 nations voted against, Russia, Belorussia, North Korea, Syria and Eretria, in total 35 nations ether formally abstained and 12 did not show up to the vote.
I think I was adding the 12 did not tern up to the vote with the 5 who voted against and taking off Russia to come up with 16, anyway I was wrong. you would still need to have a system where a small group could not veto a peacekeeping force.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet [edit] HYUFD's party claims to govern for the UK as a whole. [Sorry to Ishmael for getting out of step - apols.]
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
They do, but the translation was off and it came out as flint pizzas and pineapple dildos.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Special for Leon - Politico.com - Palin’s unexpected bid jolts Alaska The former vice presidential nominee returns to a party that looks nothing like the one she belonged to when she first burst onto the national stage.
Sarah Palin considered running for president in 2012, was “seriously interested” in the office four years later and said she’d run for vice president again “in a heartbeat.” Last year, she teased — and prayed about — a potential U.S. Senate run.
For all that, it nevertheless caught Republicans off guard — including in Palin’s home state — when the former governor of Alaska actually did announce her comeback bid, entering a U.S. House race on Friday. . . .
In the race to fill the House seat left vacant by the late Rep. Don Young, Palin is no shoo-in. Though she once enjoyed sky-high public approval ratings in Alaska, her reputation deteriorated after she resigned from the governorship in 2009 — a self-inflicted wound from which she has not seemed to recover.
When the longtime Alaska pollster Ivan Moore of Alaska Survey Research tested Palin’s standing with Alaskans in October, he said her favorability rating stood at 31 percent.
“Let’s face it,” Moore said Saturday. “She has been substantively underwater for many, many years now, and it really dates back to when she quit.” . . . .
The political landscape — in Alaska, like every Republican-leaning state — may be more favorable to Palin’s smash-mouth politics than it was in 2008. Trump, who won Alaska by about 10 percentage points in 2020 — and with whom Palin spoke last week — is now the fulcrum of the GOP. . . .
Palin is joining an enormous field, with 51 candidates running to replace Young, including several state lawmakers. But no one else running has Palin’s name, and together with contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races in the state, Alaska is poised to draw outsized attention in the midterm campaigns. Even before the House seat opened up, Trump and his allies had been heavily involved in Alaska, with the former president — and state party leaders — endorsing a primary challenge to GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski after Murkowski voted to convict Trump following his impeachment trial last year.
. . . . If Palin successfully energizes Trump-aligned Republicans to turn out in greater numbers, it could damage Murkowski and help her Trump-endorsed opponent, Kelly Tshibaka. . . .
SSI - My own take is that Sarah Palin will almost certainly make the June special primary Top 4 but that field may determine IF she can withstand RCV transfers against her.
And note filing deadline for REGULAR August 2022 primary for US House (also US Senate & etc) is NOT until June 1.
Meaning SP has time to assess how things are going, before deciding whether to file for full 2023-5 term. Requiring being on ballot in August in BOTH special election and regular primary, then winning another RCV election this fall.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
So? The purpose of the UK state is not to pamper your sect. If it can't cope on its own it shouldn't be given the backing of the state at all. And, in any case, the Episcopal (not Anglican!) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were minorities anyway.
I think we should hear @PaulD out. If he thinks we should come up with ways of sparing innocent Ukrainians from the brunt of the fighting, perhaps we should aim to open up a second front by fomenting an insurgency within Russia or Belarus to distract their forces?
Now Russia has retreated over the boarder in the north, if they take what's left and usable to the Donbass, perhaps there is an opportunity for a uprising in Belarus?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Also true that the English monarch has no sane right to be the English monarch at all. But here we are. We need to resolve the whole thing not tinker round the edges, and when people say resolve the whole thing I always think
And always keep ahold of nurse For fear of finding something worse.
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
My conversations with actual Europeans are why I'm taking aim at the fifth columnists who revelled in making bogus comparisons to COVID across Europe and labelling their own nation a "plague island". It's those conversations that made me realise the signal boosting from 15% by other 15%ers in the media of the completely false idea that COVID is or was ever any worse here than any other major European country has unnecessarily given the UK a reputation overseas to avoid.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
The effect you mention may be true, but I doubt it's just that. Incoming tourists to the UK are disproportionately (I would surmise) from older age groups, who are likely to be more cautious before resuming their travel plans. Outbound tourists from the UK are disproportionately (again I would say) young families and young people, who are likely to travel as soon as they can.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Also true that the English monarch has no sane right to be the English monarch at all. But here we are. We need to resolve the whole thing not tinker round the edges, and when people say resolve the whole thing I always think
And always keep ahold of nurse For fear of finding something worse.
HYUFD and his like have been saying that for centuries. And it's now about time something was done about it. We can't continue with the constitutional equivalent of wattle and daub, and villeins ploughing with oxen, especially as it's such a blatant constitutional asymmetry.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Well I do mention the vileness of pineapple on pizza in the thread header.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Nice to hear from you, but this strung up by his bollocks talk is so far removed from the urbane aristocratic jacobinism we have come to expect from @JackW that I do wonder whether you are the same guy?
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
There is no established church where there is no establishment of the church. So why worry??
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Russia will not give up the donbass...if their backs are to the walk chemical weapons or tactical nukes will be used...your argument falls apart here as Putin can't afford a defeat
Putin would not long survive the use of chemical and especially nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Waves to Moscow....do you have a special training manual to explain to newbies the role of pineapple pizzas, radiohead live, die hard movies, english sparkling wine and flint dildos?
Well I do mention the vileness of pineapple on pizza in the thread header.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
So? The purpose of the UK state is not to pamper your sect. If it can't cope on its own it shouldn't be given the backing of the state at all. And, in any case, the Episcopal (not Anglican!) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were minorities anyway.
It is not to listen to Scottish nationalists like you either who could not care less about the UK.
We have already seen from your country Roman Catholicism and the Pope have greatly increased in power as you did not have an established Protestant Catholic church as we did in England.
In Northern Ireland and Wales the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were bigger than the Roman Catholic church before disestablishment
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Russia will not give up the donbass...if their backs are to the walk chemical weapons or tactical nukes will be used...your argument falls apart here as Putin can't afford a defeat
Putin would not long survive the use of chemical and especially nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Nice to hear from you, but this strung up by his bollocks talk is so far removed from the urbane aristocratic jacobinism we have come to expect from @JackW that I do wonder whether you are the same guy?
Will testicles suit? ... You are also clearly unfamiliar with my fine pie business? ..
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
I'm thinking no member of the security council could veto a peace-keeping force.
If ever there was a need for a UN peace keeping force, it is Ukraine.
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
I think a lot of century's are desperate to de-escalate and get back to biasness as usual, Germany and France being the biggest. the sanctions we have at the moment are not that bad for him, and over time he can adapt, and many places will be pusing to water down sanctions, not to mention black marked and China. If Putin does not loos militarily he will have won.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Also true that the English monarch has no sane right to be the English monarch at all. But here we are. We need to resolve the whole thing not tinker round the edges, and when people say resolve the whole thing I always think
And always keep ahold of nurse For fear of finding something worse.
HYUFD and his like have been saying that for centuries. And it's now about time something was done about it. We can't continue with the constitutional equivalent of wattle and daub, and villeins ploughing with oxen, especially as it's such a blatant constitutional asymmetry.
Believe the actual earthly governor of the Church of England is Richard Tilbrook, Clerk to the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary.
At least CoEers have a clerk in (un)holy orders to decide what aspiring clerics make it up the greasy crosier.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Nice to hear from you, but this strung up by his bollocks talk is so far removed from the urbane aristocratic jacobinism we have come to expect from @JackW that I do wonder whether you are the same guy?
Will testicles suit? ... You are also clearly unfamiliar with my fine pie business? ..
As it turns out shitting on your own country as a plague island all over the international media has consequences, inbound travel to the UK is still down about 40% on pre-pandemic levels while outbound is back to normal.
All of those liberal idiots who continue to wage war on this nation because they can't live with Brexit are responsible for this. They hate the nation they live in and will be quietly pleased that the UK's tourism industry is suffering, we probably deserved it for voting to leave.
That's a stretch, don't you think? I really doubt if either (a) people who feel there's still a worrying amount of Covid are doing so because of Brexit or (b) whether decisions by French, German or Chhinese tournists about where to go on holiday are based on a study of the foreign media.
My impression is that inbound tourism is down everywhere, simply because tourism is down for obvious reasons. It's a bit surprising that outbound is back to normal, but I doubt if that's anything to do with Brexit.
My conversations with actual Europeans are why I'm taking aim at the fifth columnists who revelled in making bogus comparisons to COVID across Europe and labelling their own nation a "plague island". It's those conversations that made me realise the signal boosting from 15% by other 15%ers in the media of the completely false idea that COVID is or was ever any worse here than any other major European country has unnecessarily given the UK a reputation overseas to avoid.
Honestly, one of the reasons we need to stop testing and actually halt the ONS series is to allow UK tourism to recover. Every country across the world has the same endemic rate of COVID, the only difference is that we waste time and money trying to detect it.
There's a group of people in the country who take joy from doing down the nation, during COVID they labelled the UK a "plague island" and unsurprisingly the rest of Europe noticed and now our tourist industry is struggling to recover from that label despite it being completely false.
We still get it now with people claiming that the UK had a less than good response to COVID, the reality is that it was above average. It would have been better if we'd simply stopped wasting money on testing and had lower numbers. It would have made no difference to the actual rate of COVID but we'd have had half the overall number of confirmed infections the same as the rest of Europe that didn't bother testing.
The effect you mention may be true, but I doubt it's just that. Incoming tourists to the UK are disproportionately (I would surmise) from older age groups, who are likely to be more cautious before resuming their travel plans. Outbound tourists from the UK are disproportionately (again I would say) young families and young people, who are likely to travel as soon as they can.
Good post.
This might be a false memory on my part but I recall a lot of press on the Belgium and Dutch COVID issues so I'm not sure it is fair to say we were doing down our nation re COVID. Didn't Belgium take a big hit in the media?
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Russia will not give up the donbass...if their backs are to the walk chemical weapons or tactical nukes will be used...your argument falls apart here as Putin can't afford a defeat
Putin would not long survive the use of chemical and especially nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
to be fair, a lot of people will not survive that.
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
Like, cogent analysis, albeit don't fully agree though certainly could play out just this way.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
So? The purpose of the UK state is not to pamper your sect. If it can't cope on its own it shouldn't be given the backing of the state at all. And, in any case, the Episcopal (not Anglican!) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were minorities anyway.
It is not to listen to Scottish nationalists like you either who could not care less about the UK.
We have already seen from your country Roman Catholicism and the Pope have greatly increased in power as you did not have an established Protestant Catholic church as we did in England.
In Northern Ireland and Wales the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were bigger than the Roman Catholic church before disestablishment
That is an astonishing misinterpretation of Scottish history from the Reformation to 1690. But perhaps "Our Island Story" doesn't bother with such details.
In any case, perhaps you would like to explain how the Pope has power in Scotland? Maybe give us some links to your Orange Order chums?
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
On the second point I very much agree with you tactically. By which I mean that it is going to look quite close and the markets often favour the more right wing candidate. Though I think on the day Macron may do a bit better than expected. So I have backed Le Pen hugely with rhe hope to trade out between R1 and R2.
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
So? The purpose of the UK state is not to pamper your sect. If it can't cope on its own it shouldn't be given the backing of the state at all. And, in any case, the Episcopal (not Anglican!) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were minorities anyway.
It is not to listen to Scottish nationalists like you either who could not care less about the UK.
We have already seen from your country Roman Catholicism and the Pope have greatly increased in power as you did not have an established Protestant Catholic church as we did in England.
In Northern Ireland and Wales the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were bigger than the Roman Catholic church before disestablishment
That is an astonishing misinterpretation of Scottish history from the Reformation to 1690. But perhaps "Our Island Story" doesn't bother with such details.
In any case, perhaps you would like to explain how the Pope has power in Scotland? Maybe give us some links to your Orange Order chums?
Perhaps some suspicious calls, cards against Rangers via secret Jesuit referees?
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
Like, cogent analysis, albeit don't fully agree though certainly could play out just this way.
Cheers @SeaShantyIrish2 and hope all is good. I think Trump is on a bit of a downward path now, his candidates don't seem to be gaining overwhelming traction.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Well they should care, as it would greatly increase the Pope's authority in England in the religious sphere at the expense of our monarch
My worst nightmare.
The whole point is that the English monarch has no sane right to be head of a religious sect at all. And that that religious sect shoudl not be given special political privileges in a supposedly 21st century polity.
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet your party claims to govern for the UK as a whole.
Yes they do. The whole point of the Church of England is it is not solely an evangelical Protestant church like your Church of Scotland nor a Roman Catholic church either. It is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. Disestablishment ends that.
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
So? The purpose of the UK state is not to pamper your sect. If it can't cope on its own it shouldn't be given the backing of the state at all. And, in any case, the Episcopal (not Anglican!) churches in Scotland, Ireland and Wales were minorities anyway.
It is not to listen to Scottish nationalists like you either who could not care less about the UK.
We have already seen from your country Roman Catholicism and the Pope have greatly increased in power as you did not have an established Protestant Catholic church as we did in England.
In Northern Ireland and Wales the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were bigger than the Roman Catholic church before disestablishment
That is an astonishing misinterpretation of Scottish history from the Reformation to 1690. But perhaps "Our Island Story" doesn't bother with such details.
In any case, perhaps you would like to explain how the Pope has power in Scotland? Maybe give us some links to your Orange Order chums?
No it isn't, see Mary Queen of Scots or the Jacobite rebellion, fuelled by Roman Catholicism and with the support of the Vatican.
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
On the second point I very much agree with you tactically. By which I mean that it is going to look quite close and the markets often favour the more right wing candidate. Though I think on the day Macron may do a bit better than expected. So I have backed Le Pen hugely with rhe hope to trade out between R1 and R2.
I know what you mean, if it's close in R1, some may flock to Macron to ensure Le Pen doesn't win but I think Macron has p1ssed off enough people that the anti-Macron vote in France is probably as great, if not greater, than the anti-Le Pen vote
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
That is highly offensive to the gas station attendants I have encountered.
Some of them are a bit argumentative, but I struggle to recall one who committed war crimes, light recreational genocide and crimes against interior decorating like this
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
I do love your predictions, particularly the long odds ones. Point 1 seems very logical. Not so sure about 2 but that might be my bias of not wanting it.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
I'm thinking no member of the security council could veto a peace-keeping force.
If ever there was a need for a UN peace keeping force, it is Ukraine.
Peace keeping forces are not peace making forces. The protagonists have to agree first.
I am all for an honest investigation of events in #Bucha and similar recaptured towns by independent observers, probably best from experienced war crimes investigators. I don't think Ukraine has anything to fear from this, and investigators on the ground ASAP will help with necessary war crimes trials
It’s a puzzle thinking through where Russia will be 5 years from now. The actions of its army are such that there will now be no watering down of sanctions, forgive and forget after a carve up, business as usual etc…
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
Russia will not give up the donbass...if their backs are to the walk chemical weapons or tactical nukes will be used...your argument falls apart here as Putin can't afford a defeat
Putin would not long survive the use of chemical and especially nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
Why not?
The use of a nuclear weapon in the Donbass would be met in kind by the United States. Probably initially on a remote military base, a submarine or naval base perhaps. But it’s hard to second guess the target from the outside. Whatever, we’d be firmly in coup territory after that exchange of fire.
Chemical weapons - my gut is that it would draw Nato countries into far more direct intervention than we’ve seen. No reason I can see why we wouldnt see a volley of cruise missiles taking out every Russian formation in the Donbass. Maybe they’d paint a blue and yellow flag on them, maybe they wouldn’t bother. And as our Putinista troll has just said, the loss of Donbass would be unsurvivable for Putin.
His best chance of dying in his bed from whatever is afflicting him, is a grinding stalemate, not escalating in a way that is unwinnable for him.
On Topic - Re: Santa Monica, note that one notable resident in early 20th century was Will Rogers. The man who famously (and correctly) said, "I belong to no organized political party - I'm a Democrat".
Rogers was incredibly popular as cowboy entertainer, newspaper columnists and movie star. He received semi-serious votes for President at several Democratic National Conventions.
So what is the Rishi Sunak - Will Rogers connection? Beyond the Santa Monica pier, that is?
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
On the second point I very much agree with you tactically. By which I mean that it is going to look quite close and the markets often favour the more right wing candidate. Though I think on the day Macron may do a bit better than expected. So I have backed Le Pen hugely with rhe hope to trade out between R1 and R2.
I know what you mean, if it's close in R1, some may flock to Macron to ensure Le Pen doesn't win but I think Macron has p1ssed off enough people that the anti-Macron vote in France is probably as great, if not greater, than the anti-Le Pen vote
I have backed Le Pen quite heavily. Not least because it may well work as a trading bet when it comes to the second round as the odds will likely shorten.
I agree Trump is toast. Even the Republicans areng that stupid, but maybe lay him rather than back Desantis, as someone else may emerge. Primaries do that some cycles.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Clueless.
Sure. God bothering is deffo still mainstream because everyone you know is a god botherer.
Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.
"Kaczynski also said that Poland would be "open" to having nuclear weapons stationed in the country but that this was not something currently under consideration."
Getting away from the Russian trolls on here, two betting tips out of the crisis:
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
Like, cogent analysis, albeit don't fully agree though certainly could play out just this way.
Cheers @SeaShantyIrish2 and hope all is good. I think Trump is on a bit of a downward path now, his candidates don't seem to be gaining overwhelming traction.
Am personally allergic to thinking that 45 is down, let alone out, until we have more, and more solid, evidence. Such as the 2022 primaries, special elections & elections may provide. Though reckon that will be a mixed picture.
Also not all that sure if DeSantis has staying power past 2022. Certainly he has to beat Charlie Criss for Gov, and more than by a small margin, to reaffirm his continued "availablity" as they used to say look ahead to 2024.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
Do we know who those 16 were?
Only 4, I think - the obvious suspects, none of whom receive our aid. The abstentions were more significant, notably China and India.
Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.
Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out the nice men from Langley dropping in with some briefcases full of incentives.
@KevinRothrock Moscow is demanding an emergency session of the UN Security Council tomorrow to discuss “Ukrainian radicals’ provocation” in Bucha (the town outside Kyiv where Russian troops slaughtered hundreds of civilians but deny it).
The UN need to move to a position where no one nation can veto a peace-keeping force.
I like the idea but Putin has enough allies, to stop even if 15 could not stop a peacekeeping force, Putin got 16 votes in last assembly, and many more abstaining.
incidentally, I hope we stop giving any 'aid' to nations that voted with Putin in the UK last time, maybe the abstainers as well.
Do we know who those 16 were?
Only 4, I think - the obvious suspects, none of whom receive our aid. The abstentions were more significant, notably China and India.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Clueless.
Sure. God bothering is deffo still mainstream because everyone you know is a god botherer.
Depressing, isn't it (the Serbian election similarly)? But the opposition alliance always looked a bit Coalition of Chaos, with everyone from far left to far right, united only by not being Orban.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
So? Still doesn't justify bishops in the HoL. Where does the logic follow? Just because Henry VIII wanted to do something his way? On that logic, we should be executing the disgraced partners of royalty, and invading France.
Of course it does, otherwise the Vatican becomes the main authority for non evangelical Christians in England again as it was pre Reformation in terms of legislative message. Plus most lose the right to Parish weddings and funerals post disestablishment too
So? Other countries manage fine. Wales, Scotland, Ireland ...
In Ireland the Roman Catholic church dominates.
In Scotland and Wales the Roman Catholic church is also bigger than the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Church in Wales, so again the Pope is now the main figurehead for non evangelicals
It was interesting that, during the Covid pandemic, Catholic bishops argued many times for churches to be exempted from restrictions, or to receive special treatment, and it didn't happen.
There are still issues with the influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland, but its domination has been broken. And the same is true of bishops in the House of Lords. Of course, it is absurd, but when was the last time it made a material difference to anything?
There are still 1.3 billion Roman Catholics worldwide.
The Pope has under his authority more people than any world leader other than the PM of India and the President of China. That authority would replace that of the UK monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury in England for most non evangelical Christians as soon as the Church of England was disestablished
Maybe you are right, though I doubt it, but either way hardly anyone would notice.
Mainline Protestants in England would notice, as would Roman Catholics.
It would effectively reverse the Reformation and replace the Monarch with the Pope again as the head of the main Catholic church in England
der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen
Nobody cares.
Clueless.
Sure. God bothering is deffo still mainstream because everyone you know is a god botherer.
You're expending an awful lot of energy attacking something that 'nobody cares' about.
Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.
Perhaps. But I wouldn’t rule out the nice men from Langley dropping in with some briefcases full of incentives.
💥 🍷 NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
FPNs also issued over the No10 party in April 2021.
Could there come a point when the Belorussian army turns on Lukashenko? Rumour has it that there would have been a mutiny if they were forced to invade - perhaps you can argue that there already has been if that is the case!
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
I think that the Belorussian army would have mutated or defected n mass if sent in to Ukraine and that's the only reason they where not sent. it could still happen when the Russian troops redeploy, but I suspect now the prospect of being sent to war that you disagree with is off the table, that people will not what to put there heads above the parapet.
If they’d been part of the bunch of lads digging trenches around Chernobyl they could well have mutated.
NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
Comments
Now it looks like Ukraine are holding, there's no way that they aren't going to continue getting 'presents' from the West. What are all those stockpiled missiles for if not taking out the Russian army? Why bother waiting to use it yourself when someone else seems to have a very good idea what to do with it?
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310064117059585
Makes a distinction between France and Germany on the one hand and the anglo saxons on the other who wish to assert western hegemony over everyone.
To answer your other point, has it occurred to you that more Ukrainians might suffer unimaginable horrors for longer under Russian occupation than even they are suffering now? Which they know, and is why they keep fighting.
https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310091698802699?s=20&t=V-_MzMrzdFWH7BcYidkbFw
https://twitter.com/Tom_deWaal/status/1498310093863104512?s=20&t=V-_MzMrzdFWH7BcYidkbFw
I think your idea of holding back support so that Ukraine has to give in discussing. I don't know if you are paid by Putin's machine to post here, or whether you are naturally a 'Useful idiot' but I disagree wholeheartedly with your position.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/02/green-energy-refugee-camps-rwanda-solar-panels
The war will go on until Ukraine has driven Russia out of the Donbass supported by renewed Western resolve (and advanced weaponry). And the sanctions (both legally mandated and behaviourally gold plated) will likely long outlast the war, unless we strike gold and Putin dies and is replaced by an Abramovich type.
So what happens to the Russian state and it’s civil society? Its military will be substantially weaker. Its economy resembling autarky. And its population likely smaller, less internationalist and more extremist.
Then what? Some unsettling possibilities, including Balkanisation. But who bloody knows.
I was quite taken aback to find it many years ago on a hike from Woodstock along Akeman Street and then by Stonesfield and Bladon back to the bus. Commendably plain, at his insistence I believe.
And I say again, what we are seeing now as they retreat is what would have happened from Luhansk to Lviv if the Ukrainians hadn't fought. Only for years and on a much larger scale.
And the Ukrainians know it too. They've not forgotten the Holodomor or the Soviet reconquest of 1944. Nor have they forgiven.
And that's why they're fighting, and however terrible the punishment, will keep doing so. Whether you approve or not.
And with that, good night.
Fidesz–KDNP 134
United for Hungary 57
Our Homeland 8
I think I was adding the 12 did not tern up to the vote with the 5 who voted against and taking off Russia to come up with 16, anyway I was wrong. you would still need to have a system where a small group could not veto a peacekeeping force.
https://inews.co.uk/news/un-vote-ukraine-russia-countries-abstained-general-assembly-result-resolution-explained-1495346
For another thing - it's the Church of England. You know, the bit of the UK to the south and east. But what about Wales? Ireland? Scotland? Damn all for those. Yet [edit] HYUFD's party claims to govern for the UK as a whole. [Sorry to Ishmael for getting out of step - apols.]
As I already pointed out in Wales, Ireland and Scotland the Roman Catholic church is now bigger than the Anglican church, in part because of disestablishment in those areas
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
The former vice presidential nominee returns to a party that looks nothing like the one she belonged to when she first burst onto the national stage.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/02/palin-return-to-politics-alaska-00022555
Sarah Palin considered running for president in 2012, was “seriously interested” in the office four years later and said she’d run for vice president again “in a heartbeat.” Last year, she teased — and prayed about — a potential U.S. Senate run.
For all that, it nevertheless caught Republicans off guard — including in Palin’s home state — when the former governor of Alaska actually did announce her comeback bid, entering a U.S. House race on Friday. . . .
In the race to fill the House seat left vacant by the late Rep. Don Young, Palin is no shoo-in. Though she once enjoyed sky-high public approval ratings in Alaska, her reputation deteriorated after she resigned from the governorship in 2009 — a self-inflicted wound from which she has not seemed to recover.
When the longtime Alaska pollster Ivan Moore of Alaska Survey Research tested Palin’s standing with Alaskans in October, he said her favorability rating stood at 31 percent.
“Let’s face it,” Moore said Saturday. “She has been substantively underwater for many, many years now, and it really dates back to when she quit.” . . . .
The political landscape — in Alaska, like every Republican-leaning state — may be more favorable to Palin’s smash-mouth politics than it was in 2008. Trump, who won Alaska by about 10 percentage points in 2020 — and with whom Palin spoke last week — is now the fulcrum of the GOP. . . .
Palin is joining an enormous field, with 51 candidates running to replace Young, including several state lawmakers. But no one else running has Palin’s name, and together with contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races in the state, Alaska is poised to draw outsized attention in the midterm campaigns. Even before the House seat opened up, Trump and his allies had been heavily involved in Alaska, with the former president — and state party leaders — endorsing a primary challenge to GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski after Murkowski voted to convict Trump following his impeachment trial last year.
. . . . If Palin successfully energizes Trump-aligned Republicans to turn out in greater numbers, it could damage Murkowski and help her Trump-endorsed opponent, Kelly Tshibaka. . . .
SSI - My own take is that Sarah Palin will almost certainly make the June special primary Top 4 but that field may determine IF she can withstand RCV transfers against her.
And note filing deadline for REGULAR August 2022 primary for US House (also US Senate & etc) is NOT until June 1.
Meaning SP has time to assess how things are going, before deciding whether to file for full 2023-5 term. Requiring being on ballot in August in BOTH special election and regular primary, then winning another RCV election this fall.
And always keep ahold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
Exclusive: fixed-penalty notices handed out for leaving do for aide to Boris Johnson on 16 April 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/03/fines-issued-over-downing-street-party-the-night-before-philips-funeral
Nice to hear from you, but this strung up by his bollocks talk is so far removed from the urbane aristocratic jacobinism we have come to expect from @JackW that I do wonder whether you are the same guy?
1. GOP POTUS nomination 2024: Sell Trump, buy DeSantis - my personal view is that what has happened in the Ukraine is going to be the thing that turns the GOP base against Trump. Not hugely so but enough to let other contenders feel this is not a suicide mission and to make their move. Plus Trump is vulnerable given his comments about the war, especially the "Putin is a genius" line. As for DeSantis, he has managed to pick himself another culture war fight with Disney that is winning him kudos amongst the GOP base.
2. French Presidential election - sell Macron, buy Le Pen. There has been a lot of talk on here that the French would never vote for the "fascist" Le Pen. However, the world has changed and electorates are likely to shift to politicians who display some backbone. Macron is not that person. I don't think it's a coincidence that his poll ratings have slipped in tandem with his increasingly desperate calls to Putin. He looks like a weakling and someone who is ignored, and the French like to think their Presidents have some inner strength.
We have already seen from your country Roman Catholicism and the Pope have greatly increased in power as you did not have an established Protestant Catholic church as we did in England.
In Northern Ireland and Wales the Church of Ireland and the Church in Wales were bigger than the Roman Catholic church before disestablishment
If ever there was a need for a UN peace keeping force, it is Ukraine.
At least CoEers have a clerk in (un)holy orders to decide what aspiring clerics make it up the greasy crosier.
This might be a false memory on my part but I recall a lot of press on the Belgium and Dutch COVID issues so I'm not sure it is fair to say we were doing down our nation re COVID. Didn't Belgium take a big hit in the media?
In any case, perhaps you would like to explain how the Pope has power in Scotland? Maybe give us some links to your Orange Order chums?
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2022/03/01/desantis-take-a-position-on-russia-00012658
It does open up the opportunity to deal with problems like Transnistria and South Ossetia too.
Or indeed Celtic FC, still very much a club of Roman Catholic heritage. Roman Catholic voters deserting Labour have also been crucial to the rise of the SNP
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/14886604.poll-shows-huge-swing-to-snp-among-catholics/
Scotland only legalised homosexuality in 1980 too, 13 years after England.
https://twitter.com/AvakovArsen/status/1510185195756007425?s=20&t=NmAoqvhHmZNgMdRvtkeZ7A
Russian Army: 17,549
Mercenaries:: 5,366
Total: 22,915
If accurate that's over 1/3 of the US losses in Vietnam in less that 1% of the time.
Some of them are a bit argumentative, but I struggle to recall one who committed war crimes, light recreational genocide and crimes against interior decorating like this
I am all for an honest investigation of events in #Bucha and similar recaptured towns by independent observers, probably best from experienced war crimes investigators. I don't think Ukraine has anything to fear from this, and investigators on the ground ASAP will help with necessary war crimes trials
Chemical weapons - my gut is that it would draw Nato countries into far more direct intervention than we’ve seen. No reason I can see why we wouldnt see a volley of cruise missiles taking out every Russian formation in the Donbass. Maybe they’d paint a blue and yellow flag on them, maybe they wouldn’t bother. And as our Putinista troll has just said, the loss of Donbass would be unsurvivable for Putin.
His best chance of dying in his bed from whatever is afflicting him, is a grinding stalemate, not escalating in a way that is unwinnable for him.
Rogers was incredibly popular as cowboy entertainer, newspaper columnists and movie star. He received semi-serious votes for President at several Democratic National Conventions.
So what is the Rishi Sunak - Will Rogers connection? Beyond the Santa Monica pier, that is?
I agree Trump is toast. Even the Republicans areng that stupid, but maybe lay him rather than back Desantis, as someone else may emerge. Primaries do that some cycles.
"Kaczynski also said that Poland would be "open" to having nuclear weapons stationed in the country but that this was not something currently under consideration."
Also not all that sure if DeSantis has staying power past 2022. Certainly he has to beat Charlie Criss for Gov, and more than by a small margin, to reaffirm his continued "availablity" as they used to say look ahead to 2024.
https://inews.co.uk/news/un-russia-vote-full-voting-breakdown-north-korea-syria-back-putin-ukraine-invasion-1494907?msclkid=fa6c240eb38e11ec8c0e804f3e7554a0
The Government's former ethics chief Helen MacNamara has been fined over a ‘raucous’ Cabinet Office event during lockdown.
Reporting with @evansma @Tony_Diver https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/03/governments-former-ethics-chief-helen-macnamara-fined-raucous/
The two shootdowns (the Starstreak MI-24 heli and the Mig-35 (?) ), both seem to be in the very East of Ukr.
Another great British invention, IIRC
FPNs also issued over the No10 party in April 2021.
(w @evansma & @benrileysmith)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/03/governments-former-ethics-chief-helen-macnamara-fined-raucous/
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
https://twitter.com/Tony_Diver/status/1510718992180256771
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.