Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
Utter nonsense. It is not morally beneficial to hate anyone. And a history of World War II with the author constantly berating the Nazis for being evil would be boring and a failure as a history. It is necessary to leave that visceral feeling behind to gain any sort of useful insight.
Of the two people who actually know the Conservative Party on the inside, one is touting Wallace, the other Mordaunt.
Both are essentially unknown the the wider public, and to some extent even to colleagues.
Shows what a massive shitberg there has been clogging up the party, that any number of putative front-runners are essentially not up to it.
A Wallace-Mordaunt battle would be an interesting bloodsport.
Wallace was a Remainer; Mordaunt a Leaver. Wallace is old school Tory; Mordaunt is “woke”. Wallace is a much admired Defence Sec; Mordaunt held the job for about five minutes. Wallace is “Scottish”, Mordaunt is from one the most Southern seats in the country.
Who might Gove choose? How much might the ERGers trust Mordaunt?
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
Utter nonsense. It is not morally beneficial to hate anyone. And a history of World War II with the author constantly berating the Nazis for being evil would be boring and a failure as a history. It is necessary to leave that visceral feeling behind to gain any sort of useful insight.
It is, at the very least, morally contemptible to like, approve of or vote for them.
The Benny Hill theme tune has been blasted outside Parliament live on TV ahead of Boris Johnson's resignation – and it turns out Hugh Grant was behind it"
What price Hugh Grant playing Boris in a biopic (and in a wig)?
Isn't he, er, a little petit?
Round the waist, I mean.
Yes, he would need to put on a good deal of muscle to be realistic in the role.
Yep, really get with the Charles Atlas springy thing. Or just get him to do a remake of the Frank Launder film Wee Geordie. All the muscle needed to do a Boris!
Charles Atlas?
Would need less korma and more Tim Curry.
CA is this chap here. Obvs the guru for your hero Boris. Solid muscle, all the way round the 44" waist.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
In time I expect the Church of England will allow same sex marriages if the priest agrees, as already happens in some parts of the Anglican communion elsewhere. However the African branch of the Anglican communion is firmly anti gay marriage
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
That’s a black mark. I always found IAHHM quite funny.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
He's not gone gone! He's still PM - for now!
His credibility and power has gone and he's a caretaker PM not a proper PM now.
He's accepted its over. Something Trump has never done. Its over, now we need his successor.
As days pass people will stop talking about Boris and just be debating more and more about who's coming next.
I want Boris gone not even as caretaker, but the Trump stuff always gets taken too far. Trump lost an election and then sought in many ways to overturn that and stay in power. Boris lost no election, not even an internal party one, so was entitled to try to make them formally kick him out, he was just very stupid to do that as it has only made things worse. And even then he belatedly realised he couldn't carry on morally.
That's not about superiority of the UK over the USA, but about the limitations of making direct comparisons even when some elements are similar.
I agree that the Trump comparisons tend to diminish the magnitude of what happened there.
Johnson is a pathological liar. Vain, arrogant, selfish, and utterly unsuitable for office.
But Trump actively encouraged an attempted coup in which people died and, had he and his mob been more competent, many would have died. Democracy was genuinely under threat from that man (and possibly still is).
Trump deserves to be behind bars. Johnson deserves to be out of office and, perhaps, a degree of pity.
But the Trump coup stuff is hindsight talking. A lot of people didn't believe he would do something like that until he did, and claimed such things were impossible, and chided those who feared he would try to cling on.
I'm not drawing an equivalence, but do watch out for hindsight.
Absolutely, but Trump refused to concede defeat, despite losing the election. Boris already has, despite not losing one.
The two scenarios couldn't be more different, thankfully.
They COULD be more different; in some aspects of their character they are similar and they have both have form for at least flouting convention. That's what worries some people, because convention is at the heart of our system. Those who are assuming the sky will fall in should relax a little. But those who are wary are totally justified in their wariness. We already know Boris is the type to break rules, conventions and laws. So whatever our understanding is of leaving office, it cannot be predicated solely on him obeying rules, conventions, and laws. We must seek alternative sources of reassurance. I believe those sources are present.
One's a sociopath and the other has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That's your difference. It really is that simple.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
I’m still dazed and confused by the revelation that reviled exPBer @SeanT missed me in south Armenia by a matter of minutes
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
Utter nonsense. It is not morally beneficial to hate anyone. And a history of World War II with the author constantly berating the Nazis for being evil would be boring and a failure as a history. It is necessary to leave that visceral feeling behind to gain any sort of useful insight.
It is, at the very least, morally contemptible to like, approve of or vote for them.
Other people are operating from the vantage point of a totally different reality from you or I. And you and I have a completely different reality from one another. The factors that we all use to make decisions are totally different.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
She's as Woke as Reveille in Pirbright Guards Training Depot, or so it seems from a quick look at the Mumsnet.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
I think Penny is currently at Women can have up to 8 penises
Pretty sure we will soon be hearing how Boris's Brexit has been diluted by those that followed and any chaos, GDP loss, unemployment, tourist fuck ups, unpicked strawberries and so on is all down to them not doing Our Boris's Proper Brexit.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
The most impressive Tory for me is Kemi Badenoch.
But she won't get it.
She’s just a more diverse Truss. I don’t hear good things about her.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
Yes, I think that's spot on. Far from harming Labour, Boris's downfall will benefit them in a significant number of marginal seats in the midlands and north, as well as some coastal seats around the country. And I don't think that will change whoever replaces Boris.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
The MP for Hyndburn just said her inbox is full of anger about a "coup". He has a substantial constituency who absolutely love him. Not convinced anyone does better. The polling agrees with me for now.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
I think Penny is currently at Women can have up to 8 penises
To be fair, could it be because she has obligations as a Forces reservist not to contradict Forces policy on this and that? (I don't know enough about it to tell.)
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Boris is gone.
You've been batshit crazy in saying that Boris is Trump/Putin all along when he's nothing of the sort, and the UK isn't Russia/USA either.
The system worked, the unwritten constitution did its job, and he's gone and he's accepted he's gone - something Trump never did and still hasn't done.
Boris is officially a caretaker PM now.
If you believe Dominic Cummings the Tories would be making a HUGE mistake letting Boris squat because they'll never get rid of him. He'll play for time and find reasons to start a rearguard action.
If anyone would know he would.
Since when did you start believing Cummings?
I'm his biggest fan. He's one of the best admen around. He sold a pup to 34,000,000 people without even using a creative agency. Just a seven million quid budget on market research.
He realised that there are no rules in political advertising. No need to verify anything. An agency couldn't have done that. They have reputations to protect. So what he did was use research to find out the public's prejudices and tell them they would magic them away.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
The most impressive Tory for me is Kemi Badenoch.
But she won't get it.
She’s just a more diverse Truss. I don’t hear good things about her.
I consistently hear excellent things about her. And her speeches in parliament, as well as her writings and interviews, are superb.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Her book has a foreword by Bill Gates and promo quotes from Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Elton John.
(It's one thing for Nadine and JRM to have nailed their trousers to the BoJo mast- they're dead politicians walking. But the Mail, Express and Telegraph somehow have to work out what to do with their Boris Love if they want a future.)
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
I remember people on here using the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome", as if opposition to Trump was some wacky libtard opinion, not because he's a fucking man baby psycopath who should probably be in prison (or a mental hospital).
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
I remember people on here using the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome", as if opposition to Trump was some wacky libtard opinion, not because he's a fucking man baby psycopath who should probably be in prison (or a mental hospital).
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
How often is the fairly rampant anti Semitism of some Muslim communities addressed? Seldom. How often is the widespread homophobia of many Muslim communities addressed? Never, as far as I can see
How often does Leon turn up the chance of posting some inflammatory Islamophobic nonsense? Seldom.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
The MP for Hyndburn just said her inbox is full of anger about a "coup". He has a substantial constituency who absolutely love him. Not convinced anyone does better. The polling agrees with me for now.
Load of arse. They wont get 10% of the fury they got after partygate, FPNs, Cummings etc etc For every Boz lover they lose to not voting they are probably getting 2 back who were disgusted by him
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
Some of us have been saying this for months whilst be informed by almost everyone on this site that he had been “found out” by everyone. In the end his position was made untenable, but ultimately his polling just looked like standard, winnable, midterms to me.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Her book has a forward by Bill Gates and promo quotes from Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Elton John.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
OTOH you are a nauseatingly smug little bigot who thinks that your mouth is so firmly clamped round Our Lord's cock that it gives you a right to dictate to (Labour voting) infidels about the contents of their own wombs and the timing of their own deaths.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Her book has a forward by Bill Gates and promo quotes from Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Elton John.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It's her main redeeming feature.
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
I’m still dazed and confused by the revelation that reviled exPBer @SeanT missed me in south Armenia by a matter of minutes
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Her book has a forward by Bill Gates and promo quotes from Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Elton John.
The stab-in-the-back myth is lurching to life even as we write.
Looking forward to the bit where Boris and Nadine lead a beer-hall putsch in Munich.
It took 15 years for the Tory party to get over the toppling of Thatcher in 1990, most of them spent in division and opposition until Cameron was elected in 2005. Boris is no Thatcher but the wounds will not easily heal
Corks are popping in Brussels and Moscow apparently. What on earth is the Mail smoking?
That’s just true. Eurocrats hated Boris, Putin and Co hate him now he’s so vividly pro-Ukraine
He's hated up and down this country too. The polling is pretty clear. Sorry your man turned out so shit.
But it's also a fair point that some people still really loved Boris. And their votes count as much as anyone else's- maybe more, if they are people who turn out a lot in the right seats.
I can't remember who first articualted the theory that Johnson had a low floor but a high ceiling for his popularity; he'd probably lead the Conservatives to a calamatous defeat, but might just work his magic one more time. Whereas anyone else would steer the Conservatives to a smaller but almost certain defeat (higher floor, lower celing).
Ditching Boris was the right thing to do, and should have happened ages ago. But it isn't cost-free.
Ben Wallace would appear to be perhaps the best choice (out of a poor selection) for caretaker Prime Minister.
Especially IF he were to disavow any intention to run for the leadership (this time) AND remain serving as Minister of Defense, as Big Dog's (alleged) role model, Winston Churchill.
Given numbers posted at top of this thread, reckon that he could be put in and Boris tipped out, with amazing speed . . . even for Tory MP slugs . . .
Question NOW is NOT the ideology or personality or electablity of next PM. It is getting BJ-Exit DONE. ASAP.
That may be your priority, but it certainly isn't the priority of anyone living in the UK - surprisingly we actually give a shit who we get as next PM.
Purpose of caretaker - who will serve until Tory leadership is decided - is to hold down the fort and mind the store.
Right now, focus is removing Boris from the seat of power - pronto.
Unless you wish the perfect to be the enemy of the good . . . and risk Boris turning something up . . .
Nobody really believes this “Boris can’t be trusted to leave after the vote” nonsense. A few were worked up about it earlier but the idea will be dead by tomorrow night. The system has worked and is working. Again.
IIRC, heard similar just after the votes were counted in November 2020.
And thanks for calling me a "nobody"! One of the nicest things said about me on PB recently.
Totally different system. You're letting your visceral hatred of Trump (a man whose name you can't even bring yourself to use) cloud your understanding.
It is pitiful how retards (no offence!) think that Yebbut you hate Trump/Johnson, is an actual argument. It's not like people hate them for their skin colour or choice of pronoun, it's more that hating them is the only morally permissible position. You are like a critic complaining that a history of WW2 betrays its author's hatred of Nazism.
I remember people on here using the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome", as if opposition to Trump was some wacky libtard opinion, not because he's a fucking man baby psycopath who should probably be in prison (or a mental hospital).
"Boris derangement syndrome" has also put in an appearance quite a few times here, it seems.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
Some of us have been saying this for months whilst be informed by almost everyone on this site that he had been “found out” by everyone. In the end his position was made untenable, but ultimately his polling just looked like standard, winnable, midterms to me.
He was losing by-elections heavily, had become as popular as Corbyn, and half of all Tory voters wanted him gone.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
Oh yes. Just look up her Mumsnet interview.
It's the worst thing about her.
It’s not a problem with me. But what is it anyway, packed under woke umbrella? Can you really get away with everything from ain’t alf hot mum to trans gender rights in sport, offensive statues to he she and they without accepting your doing nothing but Wallace trying to hold a door like knut held the tide? Everything single one of those things are considered on merit not blanket labelled - where’s your faith gone that each considered on merit we will find the happy medium on each, where is all your lily livened fears coming from? Do they burst forth like Zeus when you get your first fuddyduddy birthday card?
Moaning about “woke” is a lack of faith in the human spirit will get things right.
The stab-in-the-back myth is lurching to life even as we write.
Looking forward to the bit where Boris and Nadine lead a beer-hall putsch in Munich.
It took 15 years for the Tory party to get over the toppling of Thatcher in 1990, most of them spent in division and opposition until Cameron was elected in 2005. Boris is no Thatcher but the wounds will not easily heal
I have very little sympathy for the moronic clown inferno that calls itself the Conservative Party.
Their best option is to fold up the tent. New jobs await them in “cyber”.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
The MP for Hyndburn just said her inbox is full of anger about a "coup". He has a substantial constituency who absolutely love him. Not convinced anyone does better. The polling agrees with me for now.
Load of arse. They wont get 10% of the fury they got after partygate, FPNs, Cummings etc etc For every Boz lover they lose to not voting they are probably getting 2 back who were disgusted by him
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Her book has a forward by Bill Gates and promo quotes from Tony Blair, Richard Branson and Elton John.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
How often is the fairly rampant anti Semitism of some Muslim communities addressed? Seldom. How often is the widespread homophobia of many Muslim communities addressed? Never, as far as I can see
How often does Leon turn up the chance of posting some inflammatory Islamophobic nonsense? Seldom.
OK, can we back up a bit?
Is it nonsense that homophobia is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense that antisemitism is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense tha there is a teacher who is still in hiding and under police protection somewhere in england because he GASP HORROR showed a graphic representation of the Muslim Spaghetti Monster to a class of children?
Extraordinary. Minister on Newsnight saying he wouldn't comment when pressed on if Johnson might try to cut and run for an election whilst in his caretaker role.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
By a church which breaks the spirit of the very laws passed by the state? The way it treats single-sex couples? (which I had not realised till this evening)? Come off it. That is outrageous hypocrisy. The C of E is a whited sepulchre.
. . . the only conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor for his actions during the war. His life has been the subject of books, the documentary The Conscientious Objector, and the 2016 Oscar-winning film Hacksaw Ridge, where he was portrayed by Andrew Garfield.
Citation: Private First Class Desmond T. Doss, United States Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. Near Urasoe-Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April – 21 May 1945.
He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high. As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Private First Class Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them one by one to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands.
On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri . . . [Doss was] giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade . . . . he cared for his own injuries and waited five hours before litter bearers reached him . . . Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. . . .
Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Private First Class Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.
[signed] Harry S. Truman October 12,1945
SSI - President Truman, a WWI combat veteran, often said he rather have the Medal of Honor that be President of the United States.
As for PFC Doss, when he'd first arrived at the unit, he was quite unpopular (to put it mildly) for being a CO and a religious nut, in his case Seventh-Day Adventist (he was also a vegetarian).
But when they saw him in action, his compatriots changed their minds about PFC Doss, CO.
Just a hillbilly boy from WAY back yonder, with a will of iron, a heart of gold and a faith that could - and did - move mountains.
Isn't Wallace's appeal basically the same as the winning entry in eurovision ? I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM. Sunak's the man for me still x
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
OTOH you are a nauseatingly smug little bigot who thinks that your mouth is so firmly clamped round Our Lord's cock that it gives you a right to dictate to (Labour voting) infidels about the contents of their own wombs and the timing of their own deaths.
As opposed to extreme secular left liberals like you I suppose who would abort up to birth and have no respect for God given human life
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
To be fair to evangelicals - who are mostly really nice and decent people - those in politics tend to get hammered, like Farron, for having views which are unfashionable but fairly widely shared, while Roman Catholics and the Islamic community also have all sorts of minority views but tend to be miraculously protected from scrutiny.
What? Not my impression that the Islamic community are protected from scrutiny - their beliefs are widely and IMo unfairly regarded with suspicion, and attacked every few days in mainstream media, because some lunatics claim to share them. Evangelicals are seen as a bit cranky, but few would go further than that. I don't really care what Baker's beliefs are, unless they affect his policies.
How often is the fairly rampant anti Semitism of some Muslim communities addressed? Seldom. How often is the widespread homophobia of many Muslim communities addressed? Never, as far as I can see
How often does Leon turn up the chance of posting some inflammatory Islamophobic nonsense? Seldom.
OK, can we back up a bit?
Is it nonsense that homophobia is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense that antisemitism is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense tha there is a teacher who is still in hiding and under police protection somewhere in england because he GASP HORROR showed a graphic representation of the Muslim Spaghetti Monster to a class of children?
Are you happy with any or all of the above?
It is nonsense to claim that these issues are never addressed. I read about them on PB.com most weeks, for starters.
Watching some vox pops earlier, I was struck by the way Boris seemed to be held in genuine affection by voters in the Red Wall seats. A possible nightmare for the Tories: these people actually start resenting to Tories for doing the dirty on 'their' Boris and holding their preferences in contempt; they then vote to punish the Tories accordingly. The Tories might have just killed the golden goose.
Some of us have been saying this for months whilst be informed by almost everyone on this site that he had been “found out” by everyone. In the end his position was made untenable, but ultimately his polling just looked like standard, winnable, midterms to me.
He was losing by-elections heavily, had become as popular as Corbyn, and half of all Tory voters wanted him gone.
He wouldn't have won a bean.
The polling is curious. Johnson is polling as badly as Corbyn ever did, but he doesn't seem to have dragged down the Tory share as much. Perhaps the voters had assumed that the Tories would get rid of him before the next GE, whereas Labour had already failed to do so with Corbyn.
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Oh God, is she Woke??
It's Suella for you: she's already promised a war on Woke if she is elected leader. Are you in touch with her?
I’m still dazed and confused by the revelation that reviled exPBer @SeanT missed me in south Armenia by a matter of minutes
Theodore Dalrymple has said that it's almost impossible to get invited to write for The Spectator. In fact he said he was the only person who ever had unsolicited articles published by former editor Charles Moore.
If the Tories want a principled leader who understands politics and is not tarnished by association with the Borisian shambles they need look no further than Steve Baker. There, I've said it.
Steve Baker would also be the second evangelical Christian party leader after Tim Farron and our first openly Christian evangelical PM
If he wants to do religion he can take it to church, but evangelical types seem to have a need to force the rest of us to live by their beliefs. To govern, we need people who can cope with the modern world and not someone who thinks the Universe and the planet run on the basis of a 2,000 year old set of multiply translated fictions.
I don't think Tim Farron did, to be fair to him. The media found his religion so peculiar it focused on it relentlessly, but he didn't really want to talk about it - seemed very keen to separate the sacred and the profane.
No, Tim Farron found himself on the wrong end of the "belief spectrum" and voted against the Equality Act, tried to timetable the Same Sex Marriage Act so that it would fail and alienated a lot of the LDs. Years later, in a Guardian interview, he claimed that he only went along with the LDs position on LGBT issues but wished he had not done so
Oh dear. Not very liberal, was it, trying to fiddle things so that others' beliefs were banned/suppressed?
It's a bit more nuanced than that. He voted for Gay marriage in the bill's early stages, but abstained in the final vote as he wanted protection for registrars and similar who didn't want to perform gay marriages on conscience grounds. So on that issue very compatible with the definition of Liberal.
Earlier in his career he had voted against some of the same sex issues in the Equality Act of 2007, such as adoption. Several well regarded religious adoption agencies discontinued when required to comply with the act.
Why should a registrar get to refuse to marry two people of the same sex? Employees of the state should never be allowed to discriminate in performing their services. That's the state sanctioning bigotry and does not fit at all with my idea of liberalism.
Things really starts getting complex when one looks at the C of E, which is supposed to be an integral part of the state, and yet won't celebrate single-sex marriages made legal by the same state. Not a discussion I'm particularly interested in digging into, but just a comment on the sort of anomaly one gets with the concept of an Established church where the person in charge (for now) is a RC and the state's laws don't match the church's ideology.
Yes, which is why I personally strongly believe in keeping religion away from all parts of the state. Including up to the point of not recognising (future) religious ceremonies as legal marriages. Have a registrar there if you want to be legally married, but the hocus pocus crap from the priest is just between you and your God.
You still have to sign the register, even in a Church of England service like I had last year. It is the register signing that effectively makes it legal not the ceremony, whether religious or civil
But you legally have to speak some vows, as well, no? And certain religious ministers are legally empowered to administer them, while other celebrants are not. That's the bit I think should change. I think either any celebrant should be recognised, or only the state-employed registrar. Anything else is an invitation to state-sanctioned unequal access which is never what the state should do.
Well I don't, I refuse to take vows twice when I have already made vows under a religious ceremony. Especially as the religious ones have more meaning for me than any secular civil ones.
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
In that case you shouldn't expect the state to consider you married.
I most certainly will, I signed the register which is quite enough, however I made by marriage vows in the sight of God and the holy ghost not the state
That's only 2 out of 3. What about JC, or are you embarrassed about his blindingly obv homosexual relationship with John?
Isn't Wallace's appeal basically the same as the winning entry in eurovision ? I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM. Sunak's the man for me still x
Just laid Wallace a little bit.
I'm not convinced he will go the distance as they say in racing/
Corks are popping in Brussels and Moscow apparently. What on earth is the Mail smoking?
That’s just true. Eurocrats hated Boris, Putin and Co hate him now he’s so vividly pro-Ukraine
He's hated up and down this country too. The polling is pretty clear. Sorry your man turned out so shit.
But it's also a fair point that some people still really loved Boris. And their votes count as much as anyone else's- maybe more, if they are people who turn out a lot in the right seats.
I can't remember who first articualted the theory that Johnson had a low floor but a high ceiling for his popularity; he'd probably lead the Conservatives to a calamatous defeat, but might just work his magic one more time. Whereas anyone else would steer the Conservatives to a smaller but almost certain defeat (higher floor, lower celing).
Ditching Boris was the right thing to do, and should have happened ages ago. But it isn't cost-free.
Sure, fine. I'm just pointing out that this grubby attempt to insinuate that Boris's enemies are foreign is in the finest tradition of ignoring two third of our own country.
Comments
Actually, Wallace means literally Welshman.
BBC: "You want him to stay even though the parties, the lying, the carry on?"
Voter: "Yes, that's why I voted for him - his character."
I read her book where she spent a good few pages having a go at It Ain't Have Hot Mum for having a "full house".
You can be sure that would all come out in a leadership campaign. I'm not sure how it would affect the MP votes but it would hurt her with the members.
Get him out! Get him out!
What have you done?!
No wonder Hodges is such a hysterical lunatic
I always found IAHHM quite funny.
The poison of Johnson will not easily be drained from the Conservatives.
That's your difference.
It really is that simple.
But she won't get it.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/an-existential-war-even-wealthy-emigres-are-prepared-to-fight-for-russia
(May be unfair regarding other aspects, mind.)
The signing of the register for religious and civil ceremonies is quite enough
These people all read The Mail.
I don’t hear good things about her.
He has a substantial constituency who absolutely love him.
Not convinced anyone does better. The polling agrees with me for now.
Sorry your man turned out so shit.
Sunaks shameful pass at Carrie
Javid spat on the wallpaper
And other Mail tales of ne'er do well
Looking forward to the bit where Boris and Nadine lead a beer-hall putsch in Munich.
He realised that there are no rules in political advertising. No need to verify anything. An agency couldn't have done that. They have reputations to protect. So what he did was use research to find out the public's prejudices and tell them they would magic them away.
Pure genius!
I really rate her.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Greater-Penny-Mordaunt-Chris-Lewis/dp/1785906097/
They seem to have left "with my peerage" off the end of the headline.
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1545152189898915841
(It's one thing for Nadine and JRM to have nailed their trousers to the BoJo mast- they're dead politicians walking. But the Mail, Express and Telegraph somehow have to work out what to do with their Boris Love if they want a future.)
For every Boz lover they lose to not voting they are probably getting 2 back who were disgusted by him
It even has positive promo quotes from Elton bloody John. How did she manage that?
She is not a culture warrior for the forces of reaction.
There's a whole PR industry around getting famous people to sign up to quotes and citations about books they haven't so much as browsed.
I can't remember who first articualted the theory that Johnson had a low floor but a high ceiling for his popularity; he'd probably lead the Conservatives to a calamatous defeat, but might just work his magic one more time. Whereas anyone else would steer the Conservatives to a smaller but almost certain defeat (higher floor, lower celing).
Ditching Boris was the right thing to do, and should have happened ages ago. But it isn't cost-free.
He wouldn't have won a bean.
Moaning about “woke” is a lack of faith in the human spirit will get things right.
Leave Penny alone on woke 😠
Their best option is to fold up the tent.
New jobs await them in “cyber”.
This is not like paying £50 to Nigel Farage on Cameo so that he’ll wish a happy Brexit to Amanda Hugandkiss.
Is it nonsense that homophobia is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense that antisemitism is mainstream in Islam?
Is it nonsense tha there is a teacher who is still in hiding and under police protection somewhere in england because he GASP HORROR showed a graphic representation of the Muslim Spaghetti Monster to a class of children?
Are you happy with any or all of the above?
Because a CO is NOT an agent of the state?
Anyway, many do NOT avoid military service, including active combat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss
. . . the only conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor for his actions during the war. His life has been the subject of books, the documentary The Conscientious Objector, and the 2016 Oscar-winning film Hacksaw Ridge, where he was portrayed by Andrew Garfield.
Citation: Private First Class Desmond T. Doss, United States Army, Medical Detachment, 307th Infantry, 77th Infantry Division. Near Urasoe-Mura, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 29 April – 21 May 1945.
He was a company aid man when the 1st Battalion assaulted a jagged escarpment 400 feet high. As our troops gained the summit, a heavy concentration of artillery, mortar and machinegun fire crashed into them, inflicting approximately 75 casualties and driving the others back. Private First Class Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying them one by one to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands.
On 21 May, in a night attack on high ground near Shuri . . . [Doss was] giving aid to the injured until he was himself seriously wounded in the legs by the explosion of a grenade . . . . he cared for his own injuries and waited five hours before litter bearers reached him . . . Doss, seeing a more critically wounded man nearby, crawled off the litter and directed the bearers to give their first attention to the other man. . . .
Through his outstanding bravery and unflinching determination in the face of desperately dangerous conditions Private First Class Doss saved the lives of many soldiers. His name became a symbol throughout the 77th Infantry Division for outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty.
[signed] Harry S. Truman October 12,1945
SSI - President Truman, a WWI combat veteran, often said he rather have the Medal of Honor that be President of the United States.
As for PFC Doss, when he'd first arrived at the unit, he was quite unpopular (to put it mildly) for being a CO and a religious nut, in his case Seventh-Day Adventist (he was also a vegetarian).
But when they saw him in action, his compatriots changed their minds about PFC Doss, CO.
Just a hillbilly boy from WAY back yonder, with a will of iron, a heart of gold and a faith that could - and did - move mountains.
I'm not sure that's the best basis for a new PM.
Sunak's the man for me still x
"Wallace - the Won for England"
or
"Braverman will battle for Britain"
or whatever.
http://www.skepticaldoctor.com/life/
Amazed i did not know that until 5 mins ago.
I'm not convinced he will go the distance as they say in racing/