I have no spur to prick the sides of my intent, but only vaulting ambition – politicalbetting.com

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

malcolmg said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

No price for Nicola Sturgeon?

You could not give her away

You could leave her out with the bins and she wouldn't get collected.

Has there been a more calamitous fall from grace of a politician since, oh, I don't know - Jeremy Thorpe?

Casino_Royale said:

Today is a significant day.

Today is the day @he

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

Ooh, my 22/1 bet is now within the MoE.

Tasty.

Hard to know how much yesterday’s tragic events might effect the vote . It would have been good to see what yesterday’s fieldwork results were rather than the full 5 day period .

Given SNP voters preference for Swinney over Forbes it does certainly look like SNP MPs and MSPs and members would elect Swinney leader too.

However even if he wins and stays FM after the next Holyrood election it does at least look like the SNP will lack a majority even with the Greens if they attempted to restore that deal and would require Unionist support to get measures passed

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Though Kate is no Ash Regan (who only an idiot would have plumped for as leader), whiff off getting their excuses in early.

Going for Swinney will be the final nail in the coffin for the moribund SNP. Mediocrity is their only mantra nowadays. Who would have thought that Paddy the Helmet and Slater would be running the SNP.

Good morning everyone.

Thank-you for the header.

A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.

Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?

I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.

It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.

https://nowca.org/new-venue-love-open-water-mansfield-joins-the-nowca-network/

(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)

Carnyx said:

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Eabhal said:

The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.

Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.

There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?

Like the conservative party the SNP need an extended period in opposition

It's wrong to pool them with the Tories - it's not like the SNP are 20 points behind. They are tied with Labour.

Sorry to break the PB consensus but given they have been in power (more or less) since 2007, their former CEO has been charged with embezzlement, former leader arrested, a campervan has gone missing, forensic tent on the drive, unable to recycle plastic bottles, and TRANS, that's rather astonishing.

Polis Scotland have lost the campervan? Jings.

Chief Constable last seen on a fact-finding tour of the 500...?

Travel question: what are the direct flight options for the Asturias area of Spain? Bilbao?

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

It's notable that RC school expansion seems to be a motive in the rule change, as reported, although [edit] IIRC in general, RC affiliation and attendance at church have been declining for years. Which poses particular questions about the move to SEND: daily transit times and transport are an obvious issue, and are worsened on average if some SEND provision is not permissible on sectarian grounds. (The argument that more SEND is needed isn't relevant here, as the state should be providing it one way or another anyway).

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

Did anyone believe Stsrmer.....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5b5ceaa-7996-437c-9e38-da2f8c7b0212?shareToken=2e76a67b684fb13cac22bd66e5d5d9fd

That's not the first time Richard Madeley has been described as a forensic inquisitor.

It’s a sad day when RM gives politicians a harder time than the so called political correspondents.

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.

Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

Thank-you for the header.

A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.

Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?

I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.

It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.

https://nowca.org/new-venue-love-open-water-mansfield-joins-the-nowca-network/

(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/watersports/swimming

Taz said:

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Are you saying I am lying about my voting habits ? I have already pledged my support to Kim McGuinness for Thursday.

Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.

Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.

I can understand people thinking him a bit meh. But obnoxious is a bizarre take: as you imply, he’s a very MOR mayor.

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.

"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).

Simon_Peach said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me

Fair comment, though whether selective schools really respect parental choice is debatable…the question you need to answer is: how much spare capacity should the government pay for in order to give genuine parental choice?

The current 98% (or something like) is a failure.

Operational Research has long shown that an organisation running with no spare capacity results in - a breakdown in staff moral, operational failures, quality failures, increased levels of accidents. Oh, and a collapse in productivity.

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

Wait till the Saudis fund chains of madrassas like they did in Pakistan.

Carnyx said:

MattW said:

Good morning everyone.

Thank-you for the header.

A question for the Scottish Experts. So on topic. Ish.

Does there exist a right to swim in any river or lake in Scotland, under Right to Roam?

I ask because I was looking into our local Open Water swimming location (Kings Mill Lake) and someone seems to think they have the right to control who swims there.

It's not a plan (I pick up too many snuffles swimming in public venues and do not recover from them very well), but I was intrigued by the idea of being charged £6.50 to run up and down a public footpath, and swim in a Council managed lake.

https://nowca.org/new-venue-love-open-water-mansfield-joins-the-nowca-network/

(I suspect that this has stopped now, as it seems a bit edgy commercially. People round here would not buy that unless it added significant value to what they can do anyway.)

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/
https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/practical-guide-all/watersports/swimming

Yes, though I vaguely recall some controversy over marine reserves where all human activity was to be prohibited, including swimming (following the Australian example, I think).

I was recently denied access to a beach/river and I'm delighted to say the Local Authority did a full Brexit tackle on the landowner (to the extent they now advertise the beach on the council's website).

Selebian said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.

Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).

There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.

Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.

IIRC I think it was JRM (?) who was an example of a personal Chinese Wall on this - no belief in abortion in basically any circumstances but would not use my position to attempt to impose an extreme policy.

One of the more extreme examples in the USA (Texas) recently was a mum who would be forced to carry a child that was going to die, because it was still alive, which is how a hard line policy with tin ears can be a hole in the political boat. This was a Biden advert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrtvE4bSwKY

TBF I have known very few in the UK taking this type of position.

nico679 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

squareroot2 said:

Did anyone believe Stsrmer.....

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5b5ceaa-7996-437c-9e38-da2f8c7b0212?shareToken=2e76a67b684fb13cac22bd66e5d5d9fd

That's not the first time Richard Madeley has been described as a forensic inquisitor.

It’s a sad day when RM gives politicians a harder time than the so called political correspondents.

Madeley was actually a serious journalist for a couple of decades, before moving on to doing “Sofa TV” with his missus.

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

I do wonder how many Londoners have forgotten that London Mayor is now FPTP - I know my grandparents only realised when their postal vote came through.

I assume she out polls Khan than Tories outpoll Labour because Khan is the incumbent and has been for a long time and people can point out his negatives more clearly. I also think that Tories in London are more willing to want to see change in the GLA than to continue this shitshow of a national government. A ten point lead is still pretty overwhelming, and I think Khan will win easily.

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Though Kate is no Ash Regan (who only an idiot would have plumped for as leader), whiff off getting their excuses in early.

Going for Swinney will be the final nail in the coffin for the moribund SNP. Mediocrity is their only mantra nowadays. Who would have thought that Paddy the Helmet and Slater would be running the SNP.

A person has typically only two chances to apply for a particular position.

Accordingly Kate Forbes should wait until after the Scotland Election 2026. SNP will probably be in opposition then and the leader will probably step down after the Election. She doesn't want to be in that position so should wait until then.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.

"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."

Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.

"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."

Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.

IIRC the official CoE position is that all faiths are valid, just that the CoE gets it more right than the others.

Eabhal said:

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.

Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.

He's seems entirely reasonable in media appearances. You can criticise his policies, record, but his general character does not deserve the opprobrium he gets.

His policies have upset a number of people, it seems.

Eabhal said:

The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.

Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.

There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?

The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,

However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.

"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."

Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.

All Christians believe in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics also believe in transubstantiation (at least officially).

This is the bit I find weird - because if you don't believe in transubstantiation you really can't be a Roman Catholic; it's a pretty big deal theologically!

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.

Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).

There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.

Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.

This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.

Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?

The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland.
There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.

Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.

The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

No-one should be funding religiously segregated schools imo - and definitely not "us" ie the state.

malcolmg said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).

Neither did Forbes you numpty, she gave a pesonal opinion, he chickened out of an actual vote due to his religion , a craven coward. She at least has some principles and morals and a backbone whether right or wrong.
I would take the Wee Free any time and that as a non religious person. No time for cowardly unprincipled no morals wasters , who say one thing and do the opposite themselves.

I would take someone who is willing to be pushed to do the right thing by public opinion, whether that is cowardice or not, than a zealot who would vote in ways that would harm more people. I don't value people who hold firm to their principles if their principles are bad.

wooliedyed said:

Two scenarios
1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses

2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400

Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer

If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....

148grss said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Carnyx said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

In the medium and long run this will be one of the worst policies of this ridiculous government. It is beyond a bad idea.

It's a curious policy decision to understand because the Right (e.g. on PB) is always going on about multiculturalism, segregation, ghettoes, etc. etc. and separate schooling can be a factor in sectarianism.

On the other hand, that 50% was for *new* faith schools, though. 100% is already OK for, for instance, C of E and RC schools unless I misunderstand? So it's unfair on (let's say) Jedi Knights for the new (say) Han Solo College to be restricted to 50% JKs when St Aloysius or St Michael's down the road aren't.

It was a messy but probably justifiable compromise. Forcing long established Catholic schools to abandon their status was a battle governments didn't want (or were scared) to fight.
Most C of E schools (the majority of faith schools) aren't particularly sectarian anyway, I think ?

The new policy is a move very much in the wrong direction, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine an aggressively sectarian CoE school.

"Every child will drink a cup of tea, each morning after assembly. The tea will be weak with lots of milk. Failure to do so, more than 5 times in a school year, will result in exclusion."

Yebbut we will also burn the Catholics if they dare to continue to believe in the Eucharist.

All Christians believe in the Eucharist. Roman Catholics also believe in transubstantiation (at least officially).

This is the bit I find weird - because if you don't believe in transubstantiation you really can't be a Roman Catholic; it's a pretty big deal theologically!

Lots of people can be lots of things with slightly less than 100 per cent adherence. In practice, I doubt the question arises very often.

Forgive me, I have just arrived and don't really have time to go through all of your "inspired" and "thoughtful" discussions on Church Schools, but I have an anecdote for you. I was Chair of Governors of a Church of England primary school for nearly 30 years. For about 15 of those years, the specific and stated Admissions Policy of the school was that children of Church attenders went to the BOTTOM of the admissions queue, not the top. That's because the Church regarded its job - including the provision of Primary School education - as being for the benefit of its non-members, not the faithful.

(The only reason we changed it was because of pressure from the Teachers - they wanted to increase the relationship with the Church.)

So, pick the bones out of that.

wooliedyed said:

GIN1138 said:

wooliedyed said:

Two scenarios
1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses

2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400

Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer

If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....

Oh, definitely. July is underpriced (maybe, lol)

27 June! Loads of time for it to be then if Rishi calls it next week

Thur night/Friday/Saturday - not too bad results for CON

Sat/Sun/Mon - speculation, speculation and speculation

Tues - Rishi goes round to the Palace and the podium is out!

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

I think this is a bad idea; anyone here think otherwise ?

The state ought not to be funding religiously segregated schools, IMO.

England scraps 50% rule on faith school admissions
Allowing 100% faith-based access would be divisive and likely penalise disadvantaged children, say campaigners
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/may/01/england-scraps-50-rule-on-faith-school-admissions

No I believe in parental choice. Faith schools get above average results on average, the more faith schools, grammars and free schools the better for a conservative like me

Doesn't the 100% rule restrict paternal choice, atheist parents, Muslim parents, Sikh parents and Hindu parents are taxpayers too, funding schools that their children are now not allowed to attend.

londonpubman said:

wooliedyed said:

GIN1138 said:

wooliedyed said:

Two scenarios
1) Lab take West Mids and Teeside, Khan wins by 15%, 500 council losses

2) Con just hold on in WM and Tees, Khan wins by single figures (say 8%), losses under 400

Very different stories and narrative emerges. Fag packet - 1 leads to landslide 2 leads to a very tricky term in Office for Starmer

If it's 2, Rishi may be tempted to head to the Palace next week, because that's probably about as good as it'll get for him/Con before January 2025....

Oh, definitely. July is underpriced (maybe, lol)

27 June! Loads of time for it to be then if Rishi calls it next week

Thur night/Friday/Saturday - not too bad results for CON

Sat/Sun/Mon - speculation, speculation and speculation

Tues - Rishi goes round to the Palace and the podium is out!

He's going to leave it an extra week or two if it is imminent so 1) it's 'second half of the year' so he doesn't get 'what's changed?' Coverage and 2) chance of a plane load getting deported just as polling day approaches

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

He may have dodged it at the time, either out of personal conviction or cowardice about the views of others. But when it came to the leadership election he set out either his views of the views that he thought would get him elected, taking the hit from the more conservative people in his and others' religions. so he got elected.

I'd like to have honest politicians, but it's a fact that someone openly opposed to same sex marriage is unlikely to lead a major party in the UK at present, because they are so out of step with public opinion.

I admire those with the guts to take a step against many in their own party/voters and not for obvious political gain - e.g. Cameron on same sex marriage. I'll not withhold support from those who either truly believe in such things or are willing to keep quiet about their true beliefs, because I can't tell between the two, not being able to look into their souls. And people do change their minds on social issues- look at Nigel Adams, former Selby MP (can't find the video at present), not a person I had a great deal of time for, but I admire him for this. Adams, also after his initial vote, wrote a very thoughtful response to a gay constituent I know, setting out his reasons for opposing it at the time.

Yousaf was not pursued on social issues because during the leadership campaign he set out, very clearly, a position that was in step with many in the SNP, not because of his religion or ethnic group. He might have had an easier time than Forbes had he taken a socially conservative stance, but he did not (and I don't think he would have got elected).

148grss said:

Theuniondivvie said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).

It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.

Exactly. I don't think I could say the same thing about my moral underpinning (humanism) - it's there and it will always impact my political views.

Not letting religion get in the way of your faith works too

Malmesbury said:

Theuniondivvie said:

148grss said:

malcolmg said:

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Persons of of faith have been & will be FM. Whether it is a Muslim (Humza) or a Christian (John & Kate). Each support the conscience vote & equal rights for all. So what is it about Kate that makes her the focus of anti-religious attacks? 🤔

https://x.com/joannaccherry/status/1785566115759878604

Because they either don't share her - out of mainstream opinion - views on religious/moral matters or are smart/dishonest enough to keep those views hidden?

I know Yousaf missed the equal marriage vote, for example, but he has been public about his support for it.

Bollox, easy to lie after the fact. he dodged the vote due to religious pressure and then blatantly lied through his teeth. He could could have seen a man about a dog anytime , despite months of notice he inadvertently arranged a meeting at the same time as the vote to discuss a non topic.
You boys are easily led by the nose when it is a favoured religious sect. Also her religion is as mainstream as Yousaf's certainly from a Scottish perspective, speaking as a non religious person.
Methinks you doth protest too much, bigotry is not pleasant.

I mean there are almost 8 times the number of Muslims in Scotland than members of the Free Church of Scotland - 2011 census data puts FCoS at ~10k and Muslims at ~77k. So it is a much smaller population. And even if it wasn't - the difference is Yousaf didn't try to impose beliefs through law / votes whereas we can't say the same for Forbes. Worst case scenario, Yousaf was a coward who didn't vote when equal marriage was passed - but worst case scenario in the case of Forbes is a SFM who actively campaigns to remove the legal ability to get an abortion, or to remove the legal status of equal marriages. These are entirely different things. It was a big issue for the LDs in the UK GE, as it should have been, and it is a big issue for Forbes - because the majority of people in society don't trust people with these fixations on weird cultural issues and are generally small l libertarian about the whole thing (it should be legal, but an individual persons choice).

It's mystifying to me how 'politicians of faith' can on the one hand say their faith is an integral part of them and on the other it's something that can be switched on and off at opportune moments. It's a circle that can't be squared except with equivocating and dishonesty, hardly a principled position.

I have a variety of circles I can sell you - square, triangular, octagonal....

The difference between a true fundamentalist and regular people, is the not bending "principal" to reality.

Well exactly.
'I am a true believer with unbreakable principles, except when it comes to wanting to lead a party of non believers with different principles.'

Kate Forbes is welcome to her private beliefs - nothing wrong with that. But it's not quite as simple as saying that as long as she doesn't seek to legislate in line with her beliefs it's all fine, if you lead a (currently) progressive party.

To give an analogy, imagine if Starmer had said when he was running for leader that although he was personally against gay marriage he would definitely not undo the current law. He'd have lost the leadership election.

148grss said:

Cicero said:

Eabhal said:

The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.

Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.

There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?

The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,

However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,

I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?

Humza

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.

Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).

There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.

Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.

This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.

Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?

At the time, I thought Farron did and therefore felt him badly treated (although he also handled it badly). Since then I've seen suggestions that his voting record was less clear cut than he suggested.

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.

Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).

There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.

Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.

This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.

Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?

The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland.
There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.

Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.

The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.

Yes perhaps the SNP will reverse much of the direction taken under Sturgeon. Choosing Forbes would indicate they intend to. There's no law that says they have to be a progressive party of the left. They haven't always been after all. This is an opportunity to thrash that out, I guess.

Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Are you saying I am lying about my voting habits ? I have already pledged my support to Kim McGuinness for Thursday.

Why don't you stick to posting TRUSS every five minutes.

Malmesbury said:

Anabobazina said:

Taz said:

Scott_xP said:

@Savanta_UK
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon


📈10pt Sadiq Khan lead

🌹Lab 42 (-4)
🌳Con 32 (-1)
🔶LD 10 (+1)
🌍Green 8 (+1)
➡️Reform 3 (+1)
⬜️Other 3 (+1)

1,557 Londoners, 26-30 April

(all chg vs 8-17 April)

If she is such a shit candidate how on earth does she poll those numbers relative to the Tories polling in London.

I know little of the London Mayoral contest apart from Khan is obnoxious and she's supposed to be a terrible candidate. But this seems not to make sense.

What exactly is “obnoxious” about Khan?

Another odd post from a “lifelong Labour voter”.

Khan has managed to really, really upset a number of voters. Not just anti-ULEZ types - I've seen it among the Hampstead dinner party types.

Don't really get it, myself. He is the Hollywood casting of the "London Mayor" - maybe one speaking line, then ignored for the rest of the film.

I can understand people thinking him a bit meh. But obnoxious is a bizarre take: as you imply, he’s a very MOR mayor.

He does come across as a bit obnoxious to me. Difficult to say why exactly.

AugustusCarp2 said:

Forgive me, I have just arrived and don't really have time to go through all of your "inspired" and "thoughtful" discussions on Church Schools, but I have an anecdote for you. I was Chair of Governors of a Church of England primary school for nearly 30 years. For about 15 of those years, the specific and stated Admissions Policy of the school was that children of Church attenders went to the BOTTOM of the admissions queue, not the top. That's because the Church regarded its job - including the provision of Primary School education - as being for the benefit of its non-members, not the faithful.

(The only reason we changed it was because of pressure from the Teachers - they wanted to increase the relationship with the Church.)

So, pick the bones out of that.

That doesn't surprise me.

Attacking and denigrating its own supporters is a pretty fundamental principle for the CoE clergy.

Taz said:

148grss said:

Cicero said:

Eabhal said:

The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.

Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.

There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?

The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,

However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,

I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?

Humza

Apologies - my typing error rate is awful and I am worst with names (I keep typing Forbes as Frobes and it's only the red squiggly line that makes me go back and change it)

kinabalu said:

Nigelb said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Vance, the line against Forbes may not be misogyny, as a similar approach was taken against the Lib Dem chap whose name escapes me.

Farron (whom I felt a bit sorry for).

There are different approaches, but it's fine, in my opinion, to have personal views for oneself that are out of step with the party line, but not really possible to have personal views on what other people should do (or call them sinners) that are out of step with party line.

Take me - I don't think I would ever want an abortion for a child of mine, under any circumstances except danger to the mother or (possibly - and I'm not sure about this) knowing the foetus had severe abnormalities that would dramatically shorten life and lead to a poor quality of life in that time. But I absolutely believe in the rights of women to have control over their bodies and have abortions up to [some date - which is debatable, but I think the current UK threshold is reasoonable] for any reason. I could lead the Lib Dems with that viewpoint, but I don't think I could lead the Lib Dems if I thought abortion was a sin and quietly wanted it banned for others.

This is absolutely the crux of it. The acid test for me is how you'd vote if a bill came along with a free 'personal conscience' vote on banning (say) abortion or gay marriage. If you'd vote for that bill you should not be leading (or even be in) a progressive party. If you'd vote against it despite believing these things to be sinful on account of your religious faith you're fine.

Did Farron pass this test? Does Forbes?

The SNP, though, is primarily a party seeking independence for Scotland.
There's still something of a tussle about its position in the political spectrum, AFAIK. Certainly is attract votes from the right as well as left of centre.

Having a debate about the ideological position of the next leader seems entirely fair to me (and the suggestion that's 'misogyny' little more than a smear(.

The difference with Hamza is that he was never likely to have any real impact on what the party professes to believe in, and everyone knew that.

Yes perhaps the SNP will reverse much of the direction taken under Sturgeon. Choosing Forbes would indicate they intend to. There's no law that says they have to be a progressive party of the left. They haven't always been after all. This is an opportunity to thrash that out, I guess.

Misogyny towards Forbes? There will be plenty (since she's a high profile woman of power and influence) but I don't think raising her religious views in the context of her leadership bid is evidence of that.

It's possible but it's notable that it's the angry old men faction that are Forbes's biggest backers - Fergus Ewing, Alex Neil, Jim Sillars, and likely the angriest old man of them all, Salmond. I don't see many cohorts of shiny faced, young (or even middle aged) idealists going Forbesy.

148grss said:

Cicero said:

Eabhal said:

The SNP just need to ask themselves whether they are likely to lose more voters to Labour/Greens under Forbes or Tories/Alba under Swinney.

Sturgeon's genius was converting a pre-2014 rural SNP into a central belt winning political machine. Going for Forbes = abandoning the central belt and a reversion to their former role as Tartan Tories.

There simply aren't enough rural constituencies for that to work, though perhaps Yousaf's failure to count is contagious?

The "rural" constituencies, i.e anything not in the central belt, are not only fewer in number but historically more marginal. The big fight is still in the central belt, and the SNP are losing the arm wrestle to Scottish Labour, so while I think that Forbes could be a more effective FM in the longer term, I think she will be kept off balance by "events". From the longer point of view of the SNP, it may be better to keep Kate in reserve to lead the recovery, on the grounds that the die is cast for the next GE,

However, Forbes herself thinks that she can limit the losses at the GE and maintain power at Holyrood after the next elections for the Scottish Parliament. Well, all politicians have plenty of ego, but the tide is running, and however skilled Kate Forbes may be, she is probably not ^that^ skilled,

I don't understand - if Forbes is such a good politician, why did she lose to Hamza the first time around?

My highly analytical, and carefully nuanced, answer to that question, is that she was swimming in a shark-infested custard.

It's fascinating how many people, both on here and elsewhere, regard Sadiq Khan as a bit obnoxious but can't quite put their finger on why he's obnoxious.
Curious.