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

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

DecrepiterJohnL 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.

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

AIUI in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s they did a lot of that via a different route. Supporting Mosques which all had madrassas / education programmes of various types attached. The sectarian issue was around control of the training and appointment of Imams, also around the competition between Saudi and Iran to influence the Muslim community.

Do you remember how in the Bosnian / Serbian / Croatian etc wars Iran offered to accept 10k children to be safely educated in Iran.

Even today the trustees of the Regents Park Mosque are 22 ambassadors from muslim countries:
https://www.iccuk.org/page.php?section=about&page=news280

I don't think the latter is necessarily a problem, but I could see some of our populist right trying to use it as a not-quite-racist concern trolling wedge issue. I won't be telling Mr Anderson.

Not to mention the funding of certain, interesting, preachers into prisons.

When prison staff complained about such people being let in, they were told that it was a Foreign Office matter.

It's always been notable that in secular Turkey all Imams are state employees. This was set up by Ataturk in 1924.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directorate_of_Religious_Affairs

("Secular" has rather broken down in the last couple of decades.)

OldKingCole said:

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 a fundamental problem for Nationalist parties, isn’t it!
“We want independence! What do we do after we’ve got it? Worry about that when we’ve got it!”
Plaid Cymru regularly navel-gaze over the question. The debate in their case is encouraged by that over the language.

England's nationalist party certainly hadn't work out what they wanted to do with independence when they got it.

Casino_Royale said:

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.

I don't see clergy setting the policy for CofE affiliated schools.

Theuniondivvie said:

OldKingCole said:

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 a fundamental problem for Nationalist parties, isn’t it!
“We want independence! What do we do after we’ve got it? Worry about that when we’ve got it!”
Plaid Cymru regularly navel-gaze over the question. The debate in their case is encouraged by that over the language.

England's nationalist party certainly hadn't work out what they wanted to do with independence when they got it.

I thought we were all still arguing over Brexit!

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

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.

Do you have similar respect for Calvinists who aren't Scottish, e.g. say the late Ian Paisley or the Broederbond in South Africa?

The underlying belief is that those who God loves most he makes rich.

So if you're a moneygrubbing saddo ripping off your clients and customers and storing up as big a pile of money and assets as you can, you must be doing the right thing - so don't have a conscience about it, you know you're better than them, because God has shown you to that effect - and those horrible neighbours are probably having sex all the time, what animals they are, I mean how much profit and self-denial is there in having a shag.

"She at least has some principles and morals and a backbone whether right or wrong."

Scottish wrong is righter than English right, any day of the week. Only halfwits think otherwise.

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!

Kinda. Sorta. Since Vatican 2 transubstantiation is taught to the laity as follows -

"What is the meaning of transubstantiation? Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit.However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the "eucharistic species", remain unaltered." (my emphasis)

Pick the bones out of that. In the 20th/21st century explaining transubstantiation, particularly to the laity, using Aristotelian concepts that only medieval clerics who spent their lives studying them could understand, is a fools errand.

A number of Catholics say that transubstantiation has come to mean in Catholicism an spiritual change not 1 million miles away from some Protestant concepts. That position is summed up here - https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/7581/catholics-should-stop-talking-of-transubstantiation.

"Speaking of transubstantiation, Dr Daly said that prior to the Second Vatican Council a uniform theology of the Eucharist had been imposed throughout the Church which had concentrated on what happens to the bread and the wine when the priest says the words of consecration. Eucharistic theology had become “reduced to a philosophical problem employing abstractions like substance and accidents”."

This results in a position where, contrary to what you suggest, the majority of Catholics (American ones anyway) don't believe on the "real presence" -

https://www.catholicregister.org/faith/item/30038-pew-survey-shows-majority-of-catholics-don-t-believe-in-real-presence

In essence it is all theological nit-picking that was a matter of (eternal) life and death in the 16th and 17th Centuries but less so now. If you told your priest that you believed that Christ was spiritually rather than physically present I think he'd probably say "Ah, close enough..."

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Donkeys said:

Sandpit said:

Donkeys said:

isam said:

…

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

I missed this somehow. I guess not every England Cricketer can be an establishment Tory.

Former England cricketer Monty Panesar has been unveiled as a general election candidate for George Galloway's Workers Party of Britain.

Mr Panesar said he wanted to "represent the working class people of this country" in Parliament.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68929678

I suspect his vote will mainly come from Muslim voters but we shall see

He’s a Sikh, is there much evidence of cross voting between Sikhs and Muslims?

I thought that, but I suppose it could still be argued that the majority of Workers Party voters would be Muslim, given Galloway’s agenda. There’s a lot of Sikhs in Southwell, but would they necessarily vote for the workers Party?

I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't call the WP policies especially Muslim in flavour. They include

* referendum on Net Zero
* referendum on NATO membership
* 0% income tax up to £21K
* stonking IHT on estates of >£10M
* one secular Palestinian state

One of those, isn’t like all the others.

The WP itself didn't make that list of 5. I selected them to give a flavour and bearing in mind Isam's suggestion that the majority of WP voters might be Muslims.

3 of the 5 are on home policy incl. 2 on fiscal policy, and 2 are on foreign policy.

They have many other policies, incl.

* free school meals for all school pupils
* fan-controlled football
* not taking any nonsense from NIMBYs, and
* in the sphere of foreign policy, developing friendly relations with the BRICS countries
* "heightened" (sic) maritime and coastal patrols

Some of the policies are quite ridiculous, e.g. making cryptocurrency operate in the interests of the working class.

The manifesto strikes me as a bit rambly, rather like other parties' manifestos in that respect, quite amusing in places ("We are not Luddites when it comes to digital currency and fintech"), and not particularly aimed at Muslim voters.

It doesn't really matter what their manifesto says, but what they campaign on.

Anyway, Galloway is all about Galloway, not about a coherent or deliverable programme. He'll just go in and say what people want to hear. If you're a Muslim it's all about Palestine, if you're poor he'll squeeze the rich, if you're a parent he'll hand out free food for the kids, if you have a gas guzzler in the drive he hates net zero, etc etc etc.

It's hard to campaign against without giving him the oxygen of publicity. Equally, outside by-elections, it's not that easy for him to cut through.

A lot of the policy platform is straightforward conservative populism. Family values, don't like trans and LGBTQ stuff, Climate sceptic / denialist. There's a bit of rambly all things to all people material in there but a large chunk is indistinguishable from Reform or for that matter the sort of thing Orban or Erdogan drones on about.

Indeed probably drawing from a very similar pool of disillusioned traditionalists as Reform, but with a focus on disillusioned Muslim traditionalists.

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole 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

That’s not the argument; this time anyway. Personally I don’t like the idea of ‘faith’ schools; IMO, and indeed experience from long ago, they’re divisive. It might be worth some sociological or educational researcher examining why they get better results…… if of course they really do, and it’s not some sort of ‘received wisdom’ or urban myth.
As one who, EVER so many years ago, attended a grammar school I’m by no means convinced of their overall benefit.

As you are a left liberal, no surprise, most conservatives like me however disagree with you on both and support faith and grammar schools

Most conservatives support Christian faith schools. Ideally CofE but will tolerate Catholic. Not sure that many conservatives support Muslim faith schools.

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

So. What's happening in Scotland, eh.

How many posts can we expect from you on how unimportant it is?

Everything is relative. What's the feeling in Craignure.

Not everything in Scotland revolves around ferries.

OldKingCole said:

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 a fundamental problem for Nationalist parties, isn’t it!
“We want independence! What do we do after we’ve got it? Worry about that when we’ve got it!”
Plaid Cymru regularly navel-gaze over the question. The debate in their case is encouraged by that over the language.

Yes - although it's both a problem and an advantage. An advantage because they can attract the votes of everyone who prioritises independence regardless of the rest of their politics. The SNP have been very successful at this. A problem because that success brings the need to have a dual identity - they exist to win independence but also to run Scotland.

What's interesting is that both of these things are now in flux. Maybe (sounds perverse but maybe) they could be more effective on the independence front if they were not also the party of government? I don't know. But it does feel like a new era, Sturgeon gone, Sindy2 on the backburner, a big Tory to Labour switch coming at Westminster.

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

Is there anybody of potential on the left of the party to turn to after a period of 'safe hands' Swinney?

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

I'll pop that in my bulging advice to the SNP from people not in the SNP folder.

The sort of folk fluffing for Forbes here and elsewhere aren't exactly making me warm to her. Perhaps it's a cunning plan to turn SNP members off her as she is verily the the most accomplished politician of our age and would have Scotland independent in a trice.

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

Is there anybody of potential on the left of the party to turn to after a period of 'safe hands' Swinney?

Flynn has potential and until recently I would have put him on the left, however he has been making a few anti Green noises in the current kerfuffle. Maybe that's an indication of a smart politician who sees the way things are going.

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I think most Americans have a better understanding than us of the division between Municipal (i.e the NYPD, responsible for the "aftermath"), County, State and Federal Authority.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/police-officer-charged-with-terror-offences-after-sharing-pro-hamas-image/ar-AA1nYjHJ?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=8c9e7ac277254ba5ae89d98efaf2c0c4&ei=11

Police Officer charged with Terror Offences after sharing pro Hamas image

My only surprise was this was not the Met.

DougSeal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

I'll pop that in my bulging advice to the SNP from people not in the SNP folder.

The sort of folk fluffing for Forbes here and elsewhere aren't exactly making me warm to her. Perhaps it's a cunning plan to turn SNP members off her as she is verily the the most accomplished politician of our age and would have Scotland independent in a trice.

I'll add "not a member of the SNP" to people who are not allowed to comment on the SNP to the list currently comprising of people who are not Scottish, and people who look at other people's LinkedIn profiles. Say hi to Disco Stu for me will you?

Och, it's 'all about me' Doug again. If you wish to draw attention to your weird stalky 'research' into some bloke on the internet you don't know from Adam, knock yersel oot.

I hadn't realised that I could stop people from commenting on the SNP just by indicating I don't much respect their opinions. I must do more of it.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

HYUFD said:

DM_Andy 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

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.

There are Muslim and Jewish free schools now for their children to attend as well as private schools representing all faiths.

Of course religious parents fund secular schools by their taxes too even if their children don't attend them

Choosing not to send your kids to a school and not being able to do so are different, and you're conflating them.

Yes, religious parents should be able to have some faith schools to choose for their kids

148grss said:

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

God, zzz, yawn

I'm not arguing over the Pro-Pally question, or not, I am saying the images are bad for Biden. The optics. And they are: it is scarily similar to 1968 when Nixon won, partly because of the violence from the anti-Vietnam War campaign, despite the latter being "on the right side of history"

Incidentally I've seen your tiresome, midwit argument elsewhere. When has there ever been a student campaign that proved to be wrong, when have they ever been on "the WRONG side of history"?

To which I say: plenty of times. Look at the young Red Guards beating their teachers to death for being "pro-western"

These scenes from some of the juvenile protestors in Ivy League schools are hilarious.

Didn't realise quite how far down the rabbit hole liberal education had fallen in the States....

Heathener said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

fpt because what the fuck

Heathener said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality

😶

I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?

Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.

Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe

At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing

We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.

Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.

Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.

It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.

But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.

In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.

The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.

Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.

Thanks for listening.

xx

This will be my last post on the subject or to you.

For whatever noble, high falutin', dare I say uber woke reason your comment yesterday was vile. And unambiguously racist.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is British but from immigrant stock. Recent immigrant stock that is because few of us are not at some point in history.

You have just told them that they are not properly British, that they in your eyes can't escape a characteristic from their "own" culture and moreover that there is a defining chatrracteristic of "their", and of British culture.

It is exactly the same language as the most virulent racists use to other such people.

To borrow from the PO Inquiry vernacular, you are either a racist or a moron and I don't care which it is.

So you can take your Archbishop John Sentamu told mes and your don't you realises and you can fuck right off.

Well said, their post was so much like the chant 'Their ain't no black in the Union Jack.'

That’s drivel

The whole point is that people like Sunak are a disgrace to people of colour who have made this country what it is.

I’m sorry you and @Topping or @StillWaters are unable to see this. I’m happy to agree to disagree but I will not accept being called racist over it.

The bitter irony is that it’s the likes of Sunak, Badenoch, and Braverman who are causing untold damage to race relations, and minority relations, in this country.

I guess you tories just won’t get it until you have spent a long, long, time in the political wilderness. Which you will.

To see Sunak as a representative of his ethnicity or 'non whites' is clearly unreasonable.

If you're saying that others might see him that way then I can follow your logic though it's a pretty unattractive stereotyping

There is a point though which seems to have slipped through the noise that isn't racist but relates to Sunak Braverman and Patel themselves that does leave me puzzled. How can three first generation children of economic migrants or parents or Grandparents persecuted who have made a success of their lives have so little compassion for those coming after them?

If the objective of party politics is to secure power surely the SNP have to pick someone that can either run a minority administration or attract another party (or sufficient MSPs) into coalition. That feels to me more like Swinney than any of the other names. Or am I missing something?

Similarly, if they pick someone that can’t do that you are inviting a vote of no-confidence and a new election. I reckon the Scottish Conservatives fear an election as much as the SNP, but can’t see them propping them up.

Roger said:

Heathener said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

fpt because what the fuck

Heathener said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality

😶

I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?

Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.

Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe

At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing

We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.

Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.

Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.

It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.

But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.

In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.

The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.

Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.

Thanks for listening.

xx

This will be my last post on the subject or to you.

For whatever noble, high falutin', dare I say uber woke reason your comment yesterday was vile. And unambiguously racist.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is British but from immigrant stock. Recent immigrant stock that is because few of us are not at some point in history.

You have just told them that they are not properly British, that they in your eyes can't escape a characteristic from their "own" culture and moreover that there is a defining chatrracteristic of "their", and of British culture.

It is exactly the same language as the most virulent racists use to other such people.

To borrow from the PO Inquiry vernacular, you are either a racist or a moron and I don't care which it is.

So you can take your Archbishop John Sentamu told mes and your don't you realises and you can fuck right off.

Well said, their post was so much like the chant 'Their ain't no black in the Union Jack.'

That’s drivel

The whole point is that people like Sunak are a disgrace to people of colour who have made this country what it is.

I’m sorry you and @Topping or @StillWaters are unable to see this. I’m happy to agree to disagree but I will not accept being called racist over it.

The bitter irony is that it’s the likes of Sunak, Badenoch, and Braverman who are causing untold damage to race relations, and minority relations, in this country.

I guess you tories just won’t get it until you have spent a long, long, time in the political wilderness. Which you will.

To see Sunak as a representative of his ethnicity or 'non whites' is clearly unreasonable.

If you're saying that others might see him that way then I can follow your logic though it's a pretty unattractive stereotyping

There is a point though which seems to have slipped through the noise that isn't racist but relates to Sunak Braverman and Patel themselves that does leave me puzzled. How can three first generation children of economic migrants or parents or Grandparents persecuted who have made a success of their lives have so little compassion for those coming after them?

I genuinely think @Heathener is imaginary. He/she/they is a delightful sockpuppet (not by me) created to discredit her Woke positions, and entertain the rest of us with her/his/xeir insane contradictions and alleged life

The turning point, for me, was the italicised "bricolage". I've long been suspicious of the two kisses at the end

She's a joke, in all senses of the word

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

Do you support Khymani James?

https://x.com/doranimated/status/1784005736369975768

"Zionists don’t deserve to live"; “I feel very comfortable calling for those people to die”; and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”

We have literal politicians, ministers, in the US and in Israel saying they plan to wipe Gaza off the map and that it would be fine to kill every Palestinian - and you take one student activist and the most inflammatory things he says and ask me to disavow. I take the same position as Norman Finkelstein on this matter, who argues that the abolitionists who disagreed with John Brown still refused to disavow him, and that is how he feels about violence used by those who want a free Palestine. Tactics are, in my view, morally neutral - it is the reason behind the tactics that matter. Violence in the aim of reducing harm (such as self defence) is justifiable; punching Nazis is justifiable. One student who says they feel like they wish Zionists were dead - I think that's justifiable.

148grss said:

williamglenn said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

Do you support Khymani James?

https://x.com/doranimated/status/1784005736369975768

"Zionists don’t deserve to live"; “I feel very comfortable calling for those people to die”; and “Be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists.”

We have literal politicians, ministers, in the US and in Israel saying they plan to wipe Gaza off the map and that it would be fine to kill every Palestinian - and you take one student activist and the most inflammatory things he says and ask me to disavow. I take the same position as Norman Finkelstein on this matter, who argues that the abolitionists who disagreed with John Brown still refused to disavow him, and that is how he feels about violence used by those who want a free Palestine. Tactics are, in my view, morally neutral - it is the reason behind the tactics that matter. Violence in the aim of reducing harm (such as self defence) is justifiable; punching Nazis is justifiable. One student who says they feel like they wish Zionists were dead - I think that's justifiable.

No we do not.

Slight diversions following my revisit to Miss Eclectech yesterday.

It's interesting how the "identity" debate has moved on to a new focus in 20 years. Is anyone currently proposing a national identity card in their manifesto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ZHXGHEfHM

"By stamping out the scourge of illegitimate identity
We'll be assured that everyone is just who they are meant to be
Indeed without one you'll becomes a practical nonentity
It is the card that proves you have a national identity."

At risk of upsetting what appears to be the general PB consensus that Kate Forbes is fab, a few counter points:

1. I still don’t think that a lot of people are really factoring in the big shift she would be from the Sturgeon/Yousaf era. That may reap her some rewards - but if she is wanting to take the party in a completely different direction it opens up real challenges too. One of the significant failures of Truss’ (and also Sunak’s, to some extent) strategy was their inability to realise that they simply didn’t have a mandate to move the Tories away from Johnsonian boosterism and levelling up and economic interventionism. I happen to think Sturgeon’s weird “aren’t we more worthy than those reactionaries in England” progressive alliance shtick was the wrong tactic, particularly in building an alliance for independence, but that is essentially what people were getting when they voted SNP last time round, not Kate Forbes.

2. The whole thing about her views is going to come up again and again. I happen to think that perhaps it shouldn’t , and that it will be really overplayed by a media that really loves banging the ‘progressive’ drum at times, but she’s going to get asked about it time and time again. In every interview. In every campaign stop. At every juncture. See Tim Farron. It is not inconceivable that this causes her significant problems with the left of the SNP.

If the SNP had been defeated in an election and they were reassessing their priorities and strategy, I’d say Forbes would be an interesting and credible pick. In government, I sense danger for them, to be honest.

Leon said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

God, zzz, yawn

I'm not arguing over the Pro-Pally question, or not, I am saying the images are bad for Biden. The optics. And they are: it is scarily similar to 1968 when Nixon won, partly because of the violence from the anti-Vietnam War campaign, despite the latter being "on the right side of history"

Incidentally I've seen your tiresome, midwit argument elsewhere. When has there ever been a student campaign that proved to be wrong, when have they ever been on "the WRONG side of history"?

To which I say: plenty of times. Look at the young Red Guards beating their teachers to death for being "pro-western"

Except even Nixon managed to avoid a criminal trial in the 1968 election year unlike Trump.

There is also no current war the US are involved in unlike 1968 and of course in 1968 Nixon only beat Humphrey by 0.7%, Democrat votes that went for Wallace played a pivotal role

Sky's Beff suggests Labour have been pulling resources from Teeside to focus on West Mids and their aim in Teeside is to get it to single figures behind which would 'win everything' at a GE

wooliedyed said:

Sky's Beff suggests Labour have been pulling resources from Teeside to focus on West Mids and their aim in Teeside is to get it to single figures behind which would 'win everything' at a GE

What I would do in the circs.

I think Street loses by 2 or 3 points....

algarkirk said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

I'll pop that in my bulging advice to the SNP from people not in the SNP folder.

The sort of folk fluffing for Forbes here and elsewhere aren't exactly making me warm to her. Perhaps it's a cunning plan to turn SNP members off her as she is verily the the most accomplished politician of our age and would have Scotland independent in a trice.

A question to ask is: Who do the Labour and Conservative parties want to lead the SNP? My guess is it is not K Forbes.

They want a divided SNP. So they win short term whoever they choose as the leadership campaign shines a spotlight on the divisions.

Mortimer said:

wooliedyed said:

Sky's Beff suggests Labour have been pulling resources from Teeside to focus on West Mids and their aim in Teeside is to get it to single figures behind which would 'win everything' at a GE

What I would do in the circs.

I think Street loses by 2 or 3 points....

Might come down to how pissed off Brummy reds are with their bankrupt council and thus Labour (edit - look at Croydon last time)

numbertwelve said:

At risk of upsetting what appears to be the general PB consensus that Kate Forbes is fab, a few counter points:

1. I still don’t think that a lot of people are really factoring in the big shift she would be from the Sturgeon/Yousaf era. That may reap her some rewards - but if she is wanting to take the party in a completely different direction it opens up real challenges too. One of the significant failures of Truss’ (and also Sunak’s, to some extent) strategy was their inability to realise that they simply didn’t have a mandate to move the Tories away from Johnsonian boosterism and levelling up and economic interventionism. I happen to think Sturgeon’s weird “aren’t we more worthy than those reactionaries in England” progressive alliance shtick was the wrong tactic, particularly in building an alliance for independence, but that is essentially what people were getting when they voted SNP last time round, not Kate Forbes.

2. The whole thing about her views is going to come up again and again. I happen to think that perhaps it shouldn’t , and that it will be really overplayed by a media that really loves banging the ‘progressive’ drum at times, but she’s going to get asked about it time and time again. In every interview. In every campaign stop. At every juncture. See Tim Farron. It is not inconceivable that this causes her significant problems with the left of the SNP.

If the SNP had been defeated in an election and they were reassessing their priorities and strategy, I’d say Forbes would be an interesting and credible pick. In government, I sense danger for them, to be honest.

I think for both issues this all comes down to whether, as a politician, she's got what it takes.

If she's a good politician she will know that she has to bring all of her party with her. She couldn't just do a screeching u-turn and expect everyone to lump it. One step at a time and convince people by the quality of her arguments.

And the same with reconciling her personal religious belief with mainstream contemporary society. If she is a good enough politician she'll have a good enough response to the question that the media will get bored of asking it.

So, is she a good enough politician? I've no idea. Obviously all the Tories on pb.com rate her above every other SNP figure because she is closest to their views. I liked Rory Stewart for similar reasons, and he also added a degree of honesty unusual in a politician. But, ultimately, he wasn't a good enough politician to convince other people to follow him, or voters to vote for him.

Slackbladder said:

MattW said:

Slight diversions following my revisit to Miss Eclectech yesterday.

It's interesting how the "identity" debate has moved on to a new focus in 20 years. Is anyone currently proposing a national identity card in their manifesto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ZHXGHEfHM

I was anti ID cards back in the New Labour era

But the world has moved on. Seems their time might have come.

Why do you believe that may be the case ?

Roger said:

Heathener said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TOPPING said:

fpt because what the fuck

Heathener said:

IanB2 said:

Leon said:

noneoftheabove said:

Leon said:

Extraordinary remark about Sunak being “un-British” because of his Indian caste & master mentality

😶

I had to go back and check it was actually said. It was said. Is this the *kind of racism that is actually ok coz I’m on the left* racism?

Is Heathener actually a lefty? Regardless its both bonkers and not okay.

Definitely a lefty. However @Heathener is so nutty - simultaneously an award winning writer, a far ranging traveller, a post woman, a TV presenter, a known expert on trans issues, and an impoverished single mother who has to save her boiled water in thermos flask - I sometimes wonder if she is a mad sock puppet created by me to see how much bollocks people will believe

At this point I am keen to disown her. Not my doing

We know that, your previous attempt to write in a different character during the gestation of Byronic having stood up for all of just two days.

Indeed. Or indeed in his previous guise as Sean T.

Being ‘disowned’ by the misogynistic writer who boasts in his book of abusing girls in Asia is hardly the coup de grace he imagines.

It does bemuse me though when people who have never immersed themselves fully (and I mean fully) in other cultures tie themselves in knots over race. Racism exists everywhere. Of course, some has important historic context that cannot be ignored.

But evil is evil and Sunak’s version is profoundly not the way this country has evolved over the past 300 years. His is an attempt to unweave the social fabric of this country and supplant it with an uncaring, dog-eats-dog Singaporean style ruthlessness. It’s not the British way, or at least not the way this country has thankfully evolved.

In a similar way one might describe Thatcher as non-conservative.

The British Empire was often, perhaps mostly, pretty dreadful - especially the East India Company - but we did eventually accept our seafaring role meant two-way traffic. We embraced diversity and culture, welcoming to these shores those who enriched this way of life even as so-called indigenous peoples here were already themselves part of a cultural bricolage.

Attacking minority groups and the vulnerable, demonising those who don’t conform to a nasty little ruthless business ethic, is profoundly not what this country is about.

Thanks for listening.

xx

This will be my last post on the subject or to you.

For whatever noble, high falutin', dare I say uber woke reason your comment yesterday was vile. And unambiguously racist.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is British but from immigrant stock. Recent immigrant stock that is because few of us are not at some point in history.

You have just told them that they are not properly British, that they in your eyes can't escape a characteristic from their "own" culture and moreover that there is a defining chatrracteristic of "their", and of British culture.

It is exactly the same language as the most virulent racists use to other such people.

To borrow from the PO Inquiry vernacular, you are either a racist or a moron and I don't care which it is.

So you can take your Archbishop John Sentamu told mes and your don't you realises and you can fuck right off.

Well said, their post was so much like the chant 'Their ain't no black in the Union Jack.'

That’s drivel

The whole point is that people like Sunak are a disgrace to people of colour who have made this country what it is.

I’m sorry you and @Topping or @StillWaters are unable to see this. I’m happy to agree to disagree but I will not accept being called racist over it.

The bitter irony is that it’s the likes of Sunak, Badenoch, and Braverman who are causing untold damage to race relations, and minority relations, in this country.

I guess you tories just won’t get it until you have spent a long, long, time in the political wilderness. Which you will.

To see Sunak as a representative of his ethnicity or 'non whites' is clearly unreasonable.

If you're saying that others might see him that way then I can follow your logic though it's a pretty unattractive stereotyping

There is a point though which seems to have slipped through the noise that isn't racist but relates to Sunak Braverman and Patel themselves that does leave me puzzled. How can three first generation children of economic migrants or parents or Grandparents persecuted who have made a success of their lives have so little compassion for those coming after them?

It's not uncommon for grandchildren of the disadvantaged or persecuted who manage to climb the ladder to have just as unpleasant an attitude towards today's disadvantaged and persecuted as those whose grandparents and parents were born high up the ladder. Look at the many Jews who support the fascist state of Israel. Look at the many rich people whose grandparents were working class, either with or without a minority ethnic identity, who now crap on the working class. They are the rule, not the exception.

@Heathener - Rather than not "accepting" being called a racist, how about you stop being one? Saying Sunak is a disgrace to "people of colour" suggests not only that you have little clue about the issues involved in racism but, even worse, the first thing you observe about Rishi Sunak (and presumably most other non-white people) and judge him on is his skin colour. He's a Tory arsehole. The party's ideology has always been "Fuck you - I'm all right, Jack", and if Sunak didn't buy into that he wouldn't have joined the Tory party. I couldn't give a toss what his skin colour is. It doesn't make him either more or less of an arsehole than he is. The idea that the leader of a government should represent those of their skin colour in some sense that they don't represent those who have different skin colours is what is known as racist.

You should examine the way you use phrases such as "the likes of Sunak, Badenoch, and Braverman".

148grss said:

I know this may sound like a ridiculous question, but do we know what the Free Church of Scotland (and Kate Forbes') position on evolution is? Like - are they creationists? I understand that this doesn't necessarily impact policy that much, but it is also just a line for me in terms of politicians living in the same reality as... well reality.

Interesting question. She seems sane but you never know. Within UK Christianity evolution denial is pretty much confined to a group within extreme evangelicalism. It never comes up in mainstream Christianity. I suspect creationism is much more widespread within Islam.

.

OldKingCole 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

That’s not the argument; this time anyway. Personally I don’t like the idea of ‘faith’ schools; IMO, and indeed experience from long ago, they’re divisive. It might be worth some sociological or educational researcher examining why they get better results…… if of course they really do, and it’s not some sort of ‘received wisdom’ or urban myth.
As one who, EVER so many years ago, attended a grammar school I’m by no means convinced of their overall benefit.

It's very hard to separate out cohort bias from the value added by the school.

At a basic level, though, it's quite easy to differentiate between schools which are well run with good pupil behaviour, and those which aren't.
Though again, that is to some extent dependent on intake.

Taz said:

Slackbladder said:

MattW said:

Slight diversions following my revisit to Miss Eclectech yesterday.

It's interesting how the "identity" debate has moved on to a new focus in 20 years. Is anyone currently proposing a national identity card in their manifesto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ZHXGHEfHM

I was anti ID cards back in the New Labour era

But the world has moved on. Seems their time might have come.

Why do you believe that may be the case ?

ID cards as ID cards are quite sensible.

The problem is the insane attempts to use them to link everything to everything else. With little or no security.

When it was pointed out, during the implementation under the last Labour government, that the security issue was a real one, even they reacted. By creating a special requirement for segregating and guarding the data of "important people'.

The policies on lack of security are still being pushed by the advocates of a new ID card scheme.

Among other things, they would be fundamentally incompatible with European rules (and existing UK rules) on personal data security.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Donkeys said:

Sandpit said:

Donkeys said:

isam said:

…

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

I missed this somehow. I guess not every England Cricketer can be an establishment Tory.

Former England cricketer Monty Panesar has been unveiled as a general election candidate for George Galloway's Workers Party of Britain.

Mr Panesar said he wanted to "represent the working class people of this country" in Parliament.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68929678

I suspect his vote will mainly come from Muslim voters but we shall see

He’s a Sikh, is there much evidence of cross voting between Sikhs and Muslims?

I thought that, but I suppose it could still be argued that the majority of Workers Party voters would be Muslim, given Galloway’s agenda. There’s a lot of Sikhs in Southwell, but would they necessarily vote for the workers Party?

I don't know the answer, but I wouldn't call the WP policies especially Muslim in flavour. They include

* referendum on Net Zero
* referendum on NATO membership
* 0% income tax up to £21K
* stonking IHT on estates of >£10M
* one secular Palestinian state

One of those, isn’t like all the others.

The WP itself didn't make that list of 5. I selected them to give a flavour and bearing in mind Isam's suggestion that the majority of WP voters might be Muslims.

3 of the 5 are on home policy incl. 2 on fiscal policy, and 2 are on foreign policy.

They have many other policies, incl.

* free school meals for all school pupils
* fan-controlled football
* not taking any nonsense from NIMBYs, and
* in the sphere of foreign policy, developing friendly relations with the BRICS countries
* "heightened" (sic) maritime and coastal patrols

Some of the policies are quite ridiculous, e.g. making cryptocurrency operate in the interests of the working class.

The manifesto strikes me as a bit rambly, rather like other parties' manifestos in that respect, quite amusing in places ("We are not Luddites when it comes to digital currency and fintech"), and not particularly aimed at Muslim voters.

It doesn't really matter what their manifesto says, but what they campaign on.

Anyway, Galloway is all about Galloway, not about a coherent or deliverable programme. He'll just go in and say what people want to hear. If you're a Muslim it's all about Palestine, if you're poor he'll squeeze the rich, if you're a parent he'll hand out free food for the kids, if you have a gas guzzler in the drive he hates net zero, etc etc etc.

It's hard to campaign against without giving him the oxygen of publicity. Equally, outside by-elections, it's not that easy for him to cut through.

I think it’s telling that there are a fair few independent candidates who Galloway has endorsed, but who haven’t joined his party. Maybe they all realise that, while they may share some similar political views, the party is just a Galloway vehicle and won’t help them.

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

Biden is going to get slammed, electorally, by these violent demos and the aftermath

I mean, the only violence I've seen is from cops and Zionists (some who are literally throwing lit fireworks into camps). Those institutions that haven't called the police and have had reasonable conversations with their students... are not being shown on the news and twitter.

I also love the fact that we know, time and time again, that these protest movements are hated in their own time and then lauded, laundered and whitewashed when history proves them right. MLK was hated in his time and considered a violent thug by many, Tories went around with "Hang Nelson Mandela" signs and the anti-Vietnam protesters were despised. And all of them, proven right by history - and the right even try to claim people like MLK for their own purposes.

God, zzz, yawn

I'm not arguing over the Pro-Pally question, or not, I am saying the images are bad for Biden. The optics. And they are: it is scarily similar to 1968 when Nixon won, partly because of the violence from the anti-Vietnam War campaign, despite the latter being "on the right side of history"

Incidentally I've seen your tiresome, midwit argument elsewhere. When has there ever been a student campaign that proved to be wrong, when have they ever been on "the WRONG side of history"?

To which I say: plenty of times. Look at the young Red Guards beating their teachers to death for being "pro-western"

Except even Nixon managed to avoid a criminal trial in the 1968 election year unlike Trump.

There is also no current war the US are involved in unlike 1968 and of course in 1968 Nixon only beat Humphrey by 0.7%, Democrat votes that went for Wallace played a pivotal role

This guy, Lichtman, correctly predicted 9 out of the 10 last presidential elections.
Which one did he get wrong?
Al Gore vs G W Bush
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB8JazHcQ_k

algarkirk said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

I'll pop that in my bulging advice to the SNP from people not in the SNP folder.

The sort of folk fluffing for Forbes here and elsewhere aren't exactly making me warm to her. Perhaps it's a cunning plan to turn SNP members off her as she is verily the the most accomplished politician of our age and would have Scotland independent in a trice.

A question to ask is: Who do the Labour and Conservative parties want to lead the SNP? My guess is it is not K Forbes.

Labour would be happy enough with Forbes, I'd have thought, if it means the SNP are no longer to the left of them.

Taz said:

Slackbladder said:

MattW said:

Slight diversions following my revisit to Miss Eclectech yesterday.

It's interesting how the "identity" debate has moved on to a new focus in 20 years. Is anyone currently proposing a national identity card in their manifesto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8ZHXGHEfHM

I was anti ID cards back in the New Labour era

But the world has moved on. Seems their time might have come.

Why do you believe that may be the case ?

As basically, although I don't like it, big data and complex algorithms control our lives beyond even what governments can. We don't have freedom anymore, so the downside to an ID system and database is a battle lost.
The positives of control over resources of the state (healthcare, immigration status, border control and the like) are still there.

sbjme19 said:

Mortimer said:

wooliedyed said:

Sky's Beff suggests Labour have been pulling resources from Teeside to focus on West Mids and their aim in Teeside is to get it to single figures behind which would 'win everything' at a GE

What I would do in the circs.

I think Street loses by 2 or 3 points....

Street now plugging his endorsement from Boris and photos of them together. Good idea?

They must think it is . Perhaps Bozo still remains popular in the West Midlands but it’s a bit risky IMO .

Theuniondivvie said:

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.

Jim Sillars used to be pretty left wing. I am surprised he has much in common with Forbes.

148grss said:

Whilst some people here may think Khan is obnoxious, Hall seems to be (if not a quack herself) then pandering to them:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/tory-hopeful-for-london-mayor-joins-anti-ulez-facebook-group-rife-with-islamophobia

There's a compendium on YouTube of Susan Hall in hustings and interviews...er..being Susan Hall.
Sadiq incredibly lucky with his opponent.

kinabalu said:

algarkirk said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Andy_JS said:

Northern_Al said:

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.

Rishi Sunak is a good example of a non-obnoxious politician, even if you disagree with his policies.

Both Sadiq Khan and Rishi Sunak are of average height, which apparently is too short to be a proper leader.

Forbes is a bit of a short arse; game over.

Otoh if she was bossing a Yamaha V Max 16 years ago I might revise my opinion.

They should have gone for her in the first place.

I'll pop that in my bulging advice to the SNP from people not in the SNP folder.

The sort of folk fluffing for Forbes here and elsewhere aren't exactly making me warm to her. Perhaps it's a cunning plan to turn SNP members off her as she is verily the the most accomplished politician of our age and would have Scotland independent in a trice.

A question to ask is: Who do the Labour and Conservative parties want to lead the SNP? My guess is it is not K Forbes.

Labour would be happy enough with Forbes, I'd have thought, if it means the SNP are no longer to the left of them.

I would have thought the Tories would be happy with Forbes too, given that her view that sex before marriage is wrong, wrong, wrong, is shared by so few people - and those who do share her view probably think she should be in the kitchen rather than doing politics.