You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
I don’t really see it affecting the churches, tbh. That style of ceremony was already an explicit choice (or not) for most. The big losers will be the existing licenced hotels.
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
You should vote for the Conservatives in this scenario. Jenrick is clearly driven by cold political ambition rather than some MAGA ideology; the man was a Cameroon once, voted Remain.
That kind of tactical voting might prevent a Reform majority, and mitigate some of the more extreme excesses.
We need a PR coupon election. I am sick of FPTP - it doesn’t work with this many parties on reasonable vote shares.
Yes it does, because it means that any party that can reach across and offer a big tent to encourage the most votes wins, which is a good thing.
PR just results in politics like in Israel or Italy, not any better.
Or Ireland. Which has elected centre right governments for the existence of the state. Which I would have thought you’d like?
I like democracy more than I like to win, and I stand by the system whether we win or lose.
Those who only go with the system they think will see them win are not true democrats.
In 1983 the longest-suicide note in history received the support of 27.6% of the vote.
In 2029, 27.6% of the vote could be enough to return a majority government. Would you really be happy for a government to implement a manifesto that received such a low minority share of the vote?
We’ve got one doing it on 33% yet many people are happy with that.
The current government is the most unpopular government in British history. The people happy with it are very well hidden.
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
With all due respect that’s an exactly why you should vote for him.
If you don’t have sane voices (even if backbenchers) among Tory MPs then no hope of reversing the shift in the direction of Reform.
The sport of hating the Toreez will long outlast Reformophobia Theres a Ben Elton born every minute
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Heh. A female Arch Bishop. Let’s see how the Anglican Churches overseas react to that…
As long as she wasn't LGBT they probably won't be too bothered (the North American and Scottish and New Zealand Anglican churches wouldn't even be that bothered by that). It is more the Roman Catholics, Orthodox and Southern Baptists who don't believe in women clergy
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
You should vote for the Conservatives in this scenario. Jenrick is clearly driven by cold political ambition rather than some MAGA ideology; the man was a Cameroon once, voted Remain.
That kind of tactical voting might prevent a Reform majority, and mitigate some of the more extreme excesses.
We need a PR coupon election. I am sick of FPTP - it doesn’t work with this many parties on reasonable vote shares.
Yes it does, because it means that any party that can reach across and offer a big tent to encourage the most votes wins, which is a good thing.
PR just results in politics like in Israel or Italy, not any better.
Or Ireland. Which has elected centre right governments for the existence of the state. Which I would have thought you’d like?
I like democracy more than I like to win, and I stand by the system whether we win or lose.
Those who only go with the system they think will see them win are not true democrats.
In 1983 the longest-suicide note in history received the support of 27.6% of the vote.
In 2029, 27.6% of the vote could be enough to return a majority government. Would you really be happy for a government to implement a manifesto that received such a low minority share of the vote?
We’ve got one doing it on 33% yet many people are happy with that.
The current government is the most unpopular government in British history. The people happy with it are very well hidden.
What makes you think they’d be deliriously happy with a govt elected by a different means.
People are unhappy with this govt as it’s failing. Not due to 33% voting for it.
On topic, the YouGov MRP seems to ignore Northern Ireland. I assume the likely 10ish unionist MPs would be happy to be in a Reform coalition, which changes things, Reform could then close any gap with ambitious Conservative defectors rather than the Conservative party.
My hunch would be that FPTP has a fair amount of inertia and that Reform won't surge to ~300 in one GE. If the current OPs reflect the votes at the next GE then a Labour collapse with Reform ~200, Con ~100, LD ~100. Pessimistically, UK then following other European countries with a Ref/Con/LD coalition, then Reform, having been further normalised, then getting ~300 at the following GE.
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
It also provides for legally-binding "other" religious weddings which although they do not say so might mean stepping away from Sharia weddings, but will also end the 2-stage process of religious venue plus registry office. It is hard to be sure because, firstly, I'm not well up on these matters, and secondly because this announcement is premature and the devil will be in the detail after consultations and legislation.
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
I don’t really see it affecting the churches, tbh. That style of ceremony was already an explicit choice (or not) for most. The big losers will be the existing licenced hotels.
All this seems odd to me. Ministers in the kirk in Scotland could and still can marry anywhere appropriate (albeit by negotiation): in the old days it was often in the minister's study or the bride's parents' home.
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
You should vote for the Conservatives in this scenario. Jenrick is clearly driven by cold political ambition rather than some MAGA ideology; the man was a Cameroon once, voted Remain.
That kind of tactical voting might prevent a Reform majority, and mitigate some of the more extreme excesses.
We need a PR coupon election. I am sick of FPTP - it doesn’t work with this many parties on reasonable vote shares.
Yes it does, because it means that any party that can reach across and offer a big tent to encourage the most votes wins, which is a good thing.
PR just results in politics like in Israel or Italy, not any better.
Or Ireland. Which has elected centre right governments for the existence of the state. Which I would have thought you’d like?
I like democracy more than I like to win, and I stand by the system whether we win or lose.
Those who only go with the system they think will see them win are not true democrats.
In 1983 the longest-suicide note in history received the support of 27.6% of the vote.
In 2029, 27.6% of the vote could be enough to return a majority government. Would you really be happy for a government to implement a manifesto that received such a low minority share of the vote?
We’ve got one doing it on 33% yet many people are happy with that.
The current government is the most unpopular government in British history. The people happy with it are very well hidden.
What makes you think they’d be deliriously happy with a govt elected by a different means.
People are unhappy with this govt as it’s failing. Not due to 33% voting for it.
If the government had been formed as a result of a coalition then it would have had a broader base of support to start with and I do think it would be more popular. The policies implemented would have had to be more widely examined, which you would expect would improve their quality, rather than coming just from Starmer, Reeves and their closest advisors.
Lots of governments have become unpopular due to failing, but the depth of this governments unpopularity, so soon and before they can do anything half as wrong as previous governments, is I think because there's a sense that it having a landslide majority on a small share of the vote is taking the piss.
Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, has been announced as the next Archbishop of Canterbury by Downing Street.
She will be the first female Archbishop in history and a good choice in my view
What are the factors that make her a good choice?
I know very little about CofE Bishops, or internal politics.
Well she is a woman for starters which after recent sex abuse cases involving males was desperately needed. She is reasonably pro Parish and backed blessings for same sex couples
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
When we got married the limitations were quite strict. We didn't like our registry office, but liked another which we didn't qualify for. We lied about our address using a friend's address. We didn't realise they would ask us to confirm the address at the ceremony and we fumbled over it, but got away with it. Not sure we are actually married.
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
When we got married the limitations were quite strict. We didn't like our registry office, but liked another which we didn't qualify for. We lied about our address using a friend's address. We didn't realise they would ask us to confirm the address at the ceremony and we fumbled over it, but got away with it. Not sure we are actually married.
Interesting. In Scotland you don't need to use the local office - another one will do. Which was a blessing for us, as the one in our local authority is really grim, whereas the one we used in the next LA is lovely with a garden outside.
A reminder that May couldn't do it from a majority government and 45%, 20 points clear in the polls. Farage is trying to do it from 5 seats and 30% 3 and a half years out. The 'non voters' are voting Reform right now. The 'voters' are still sitting on their hands. Another pattern out of the locals id expect to see on steroids at a GE using Brentwood last night as example....... Reform breakthrough and Tories lost vote share but the other 3 parties lost proportionately more of their vote. The non Ref vote will start to coalesce more as we approach a national vote
Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, has been announced as the next Archbishop of Canterbury by Downing Street.
She will be the first female Archbishop in history and a good choice in my view
What are the factors that make her a good choice?
I know very little about CofE Bishops, or internal politics.
Well she is a woman for starters which after recent sex abuse cases involving males was desperately needed. She is reasonably pro Parish and backed blessings for same sex couples
Interesting. Does that mean she's anti gay marriage, or conversely leaning that way?
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
I don’t really see it affecting the churches, tbh. That style of ceremony was already an explicit choice (or not) for most. The big losers will be the existing licenced hotels.
All this seems odd to me. Ministers in the kirk in Scotland could and still can marry anywhere appropriate (albeit by negotiation): in the old days it was often in the minister's study or the bride's parents' home.
I would get rid of the right of the State to marry people. The official part would then be merely to register a union already agreed by the couple.
Ceremonies then become completely a matter for the couple, no licensing necessary.
Interesting findings from the Yougov MRP, close but no cigar for a Reform majority
Bound to be a lot of 3 and 4 way marginals next time, even this far out.
It looks like the seats the Tories are more likely to hold onto are more affluent, with less of a working class vote for Reform to squeeze.
One result which stands out is reform taking the Carrick/S Ayrshire seat by 8%. Hexham stays Labour under these results
Head says to me this could be peak Reform but politics is very volatile right now and anything can happen. I expect we are nearing the end game for FPTP if this is borne out
Tracked: Russia’s drone mothership causing mayhem around Europe Tanker seized off France is believed to have been used for ‘hybrid war’ attacks in Denmark and Germany
A Russian shadow-fleet ship raided by the French authorities could be linked to nine drone attacks on European airports and other infrastructure.
The Boracay, an 18-year-old tanker, left Russia on Sept 20 and sailed through the Baltic, where a string of mysterious swarms of drones were launched over the past two weeks.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
I don’t really see it affecting the churches, tbh. That style of ceremony was already an explicit choice (or not) for most. The big losers will be the existing licenced hotels.
All this seems odd to me. Ministers in the kirk in Scotland could and still can marry anywhere appropriate (albeit by negotiation): in the old days it was often in the minister's study or the bride's parents' home.
I would get rid of the right of the State to marry people. The official part would then be merely to register a union already agreed by the couple.
Ceremonies then become completely a matter for the couple, no licensing necessary.
Hmm, that would dispose of the right of the church - whether an Established one. But then that was the case in Scotland from the Reformation onwards, marriage being a civil contract, no minister needed, despite English upper-class panics over Gretna elopement marriages and the threat of disrespecting Scots marriages against the Treaty of Union. It was only in Victorian times that registration was brought in, and even then common law marriages were a thing.
The article gives some analysis but I'd suggest Farage in his golf club bore mode tends to believe the last thing he has heard, which is why he mixes Russian and MAGA talking points.
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
When we got married the limitations were quite strict. We didn't like our registry office, but liked another which we didn't qualify for. We lied about our address using a friend's address. We didn't realise they would ask us to confirm the address at the ceremony and we fumbled over it, but got away with it. Not sure we are actually married.
Interesting. In Scotland you don't need to use the local office - another one will do. Which was a blessing for us, as the one in our local authority is really grim, whereas the one we used in the next LA is lovely with a garden outside.
Yes that was our reason. This was over 30 years ago when the rules were stricter. No idea what the rules are now.
Heh. A female Arch Bishop. Let’s see how the Anglican Churches overseas react to that…
What about God? How will She react?
It's about time the monotheistic religions re-organized based on the views that really matter to them, to make things simpler for the rest of us ... e.g
Misogynists and homophobes - Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Islam, conservative Jews, conservative Anglicans and Protestants, white US Churchs
More liberal / airy fairy - CoE, liberal Jews, black US Churchs, Quakers, Methodists etc
Interesting findings from the Yougov MRP, close but no cigar for a Reform majority
Bound to be a lot of 3 and 4 way marginals next time, even this far out.
It looks like the seats the Tories are more likely to hold onto are more affluent, with less of a working class vote for Reform to squeeze.
One result which stands out is reform taking the Carrick/S Ayrshire seat by 8%. Hexham stays Labour under these results
Head says to me this could be peak Reform but politics is very volatile right now and anything can happen. I expect we are nearing the end game for FPTP if this is borne out
35% in a constituency will take most seats, 30% a lot of them. Makes some surprising holds and losses likely Regarding Carrick etc, colour me skeptical. I don't see it but the Doon valley Holyrood seat will give us an idea. Theres also the Ayr North by election shortly. I suspect whomever of Ref or Con gets knocked out first will see their transfers push the other over the line
They had better not, is all can say. I will attend any marches and dust off my No2ID membership, if necessary.
Hopefully Starmer will shelve it, to stabilise his leadership position, and win back more votes to the left, which seems to be the strategy since the conference speech where he didnf mention it. The policy now only has 34% support.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
If Kemi is replaced next year it will be Cleverly who replaces her by coronation as Tory MPs elected Howard by coronation to succeed IDS in 2003 and Sunak by coronation to replace Truss in 2022.
Tory voters who stayed loyal in 2024 and all voters prefer Cleverly too polls show, only Reform voters prefer Jenrick. Even Tory members rejected Jenrick last year
The best chance the Tories have is to select a leader who looks "prime ministerial" and is able to attract Reform-defectors who are queasy about the prospect of Nige in Downing Street. May also help with the fight with the LibDems. Cleverly appears the only option so far as I can see and, let's face it, he would have won the top job if the Tory MP's hadn't screwed up the leadership election. I think he must still feel in the game, as he accepted a job in the shadow cabinet (much like Howard becoming Shadow Chancellor under IDS when he might have reasonably retired).
There was some talk downstream about the SDP. Worth remembering that they brought to the party some serious politicians with cabinet experience - Jenkins, Owen, Williams plus several more competent juniors. So far, Reform has only Farage, who is no-one's idea of a competent man of government. And as for his followers - don't ask.
Whatever happen, Reform will prove short-lived. They either fail to maintain momentum, don't win the election, and then disappear when Farage steps down, and the Tories recover. Or else, they win, form a Government, and collapse under the pressure of office and events. Just imagine what a Reform-majority parliamentary party would look like. "Strong and stable"?
About one of the results yesterday - Harrietsham and Lenham by-election
These are two small Kentish villages, the sort where everyone knows your business. It's also been threatened by a very large housing development of 5000 houses which will likely by filled with DFLs (Down from London). Seems that Reform picked up a large NOTA vote. Given we have a policy vacuum from both Reform and Conservatives (apart from bash themuns) then these sorts of low level changes will continue.
Perhaps the Conservatives should replace Kemi with Kimi to fill their policy vacuum.
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
If Kemi is replaced next year it will be Cleverly who replaces her by coronation as Tory MPs elected Howard by coronation to succeed IDS in 2003 and Sunak by coronation to replace Truss in 2022.
Tory voters who stayed loyal in 2024 and all voters prefer Cleverly too polls show, only Reform voters prefer Jenrick. Even Tory members rejected Jenrick last year
The best chance the Tories have is to select a leader who looks "prime ministerial" and is able to attract Reform-defectors who are queasy about the prospect of Nige in Downing Street. May also help with the fight with the LibDems. Cleverly appears the only option so far as I can see and, let's face it, he would have won the top job if the Tory MP's hadn't screwed up the leadership election. I think he must still feel in the game, as he accepted a job in the shadow cabinet (much like Howard becoming Shadow Chancellor under IDS when he might have reasonably retired).
There was some talk downstream about the SDP. Worth remembering that they brought to the party some serious politicians with cabinet experience - Jenkins, Owen, Williams plus several more competent juniors. So far, Reform has only Farage, who is no-one's idea of a competent man of government. And as for his followers - don't ask.
Whatever happen, Reform will prove short-lived. They either fail to maintain momentum, don't win the election, and then disappear when Farage steps down, and the Tories recover. Or else, they win, form a Government, and collapse under the pressure of office and events. Just imagine what a Reform-majority parliamentary party would look like. "Strong and stable"?
I suspect if Cleverley is not leader by conference next year he will be unveiled as London Mayor candidate.
I am not convinced by Hindu voters being Conservative though. I think that was largely a Sunak effect which is now extinct. Leicester East as a safe Tory seat stretches the concept. I dont know who will win there but an independent would be most likely, particularly as the Tories align ever more closely to Reform, and go down a similar rabbit hole of mass deportations of legal immigrants.
MRPs are great but this kind of constituency-level analysis just doesn't work IMO. It's a big sample but stretched across 650 constituencies...
Not a statistician but I think it's worthy of the sub-sample klaxon. Acceptable for broad trends but is there really enough data to suggest that Kirkcaldy is a three-way fight? The 92% that GOTV points out for the last election sounds good but I reckon I could have guessed close to that given a vote share and a simple model.
I'm about to be a statistician (part of my job title in a couple of weeks from now) so I'll comment
I'd say that on average the results (if the model and sampling have been done well) will be about right - i.e. you'll probably find it does pretty well overall on a constituency basis, even if adding up the totals based on most likely winner in each (but where the difference is very marginal in a lot of constituencies it could easily be far off on that kind of analysis if slightly out on vote shares) and more certainly if adding up seats based on fractional seats won (implied chance in each seat). But for an individual seat that samples for any local factors are indeed small and can easily miss things.
So, anything that looks interesting needs some thought and maybe some local knowledge. We all remember Canterbury, won on demographic voting shifts and there may be others like that if, e.g., we see young people deserting Labour for Greens or the Magic Grandpa Raisin party. But local knowledge of strong candidates, local issues or tacit inter-party collaboration would likely not be well picked up in the predictions and so that knowledge should probably trump what the model says.
It's always possible, as always, for people to screw up the models too, over-compensating for a one-off event or missing important factors.
Sarah Mulally as next ABP. The Church Times is a good place to watch.
The Church Times will have a lot of coverage from different angles, and you get two free articles a month with a free account, or it archives successfully. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/
Next week's letters page will also be one to look at for a range of thoughtful views.
1 - Problems will be more international, rather than within the UK. There is potential for eg "Primus inter Pares" for the Anglican Communion to be split from "Archbishop of Canterbury" as a Via Media to keep the show on the road, or something similar. 2 - One significant point will be about how marginal the story becomes across our media. If it is niche, that speaks to a marginalisation of the Church of England, and the Bishops in the Lords are at risk. 3 - When listening to Justin Welby's poorly judged standing-down speech in the Lords (and I've generally been a fan on JW) she had a face like thunder throughout afaics, whilst the male Bishops sitting behind chuckled a little at his couple of quips. That is a positive indicator, perhaps. 4 - Some have personal questions about her on things in London Diocese. I don't know enough to comment on how material these are. https://youtu.be/2Uerg54oTJQ?t=283
About one of the results yesterday - Harrietsham and Lenham by-election
These are two small Kentish villages, the sort where everyone knows your business. It's also been threatened by a very large housing development of 5000 houses which will likely by filled with DFLs (Down from London). Seems that Reform picked up a large NOTA vote. Given we have a policy vacuum from both Reform and Conservatives (apart from bash themuns) then these sorts of low level changes will continue.
Perhaps the Conservatives should replace Kemi with Kimi to fill their policy vacuum.
Held by indies in 2024 on a massive 58% so indeed the NOTA votes went Reform. Its in Faversham and Mid Kent though which voted 21% Reform last year at the GE so not entirely unsurprising
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
He's not openly anti-black because he wants to concentrate on what he believes he can paint as the main 'enemy': Muslims. I see no indication that he is in any way pro-blacks, or pro-Asians, for that matter. If it was not Muslims, some other group would be the focus of his hate.
He's a racist, and he encourages racism of all sorts.
The article gives some analysis but I'd suggest Farage in his golf club bore mode tends to believe the last thing he has heard, which is why he mixes Russian and MAGA talking points.
TBF 'Russian and MAGA talking points' have quite an overlap.
Heh. A female Arch Bishop. Let’s see how the Anglican Churches overseas react to that…
What about God? How will She react?
It's about time the monotheistic religions re-organized based on the views that really matter to them, to make things simpler for the rest of us ... e.g
Misogynists and homophobes - Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Islam, conservative Jews, conservative Anglicans and Protestants, white US Churchs
More liberal / airy fairy - CoE, liberal Jews, black US Churchs, Quakers, Methodists etc
Good morning. The ghouls were out last night and it's not even Halloween. Wonder when we are going to read about someone being radicalised by PB?
Back on subject and looking at the forecast for my own 'safe' Tory seat which is supposed to go Reform. Knowing the local Reform people (ex-UKIP) they just don't have the skills to run a council given the level of issues to be dealt with locally. Scale that up to Westminster and if Reform do get in, then unless there is something like the Heritage Foundation or some well-financed Think Tank, then it will be more of a disaster than the previous 3 governments.
One can only hope there will be more defections of skilled and capable politicians to Reform before 2029 cos a Reform government won't be pretty.
I am in one of the seats showing conservative on this MRP, with Reform a close second. My Tory MP is one of the relatively sane ones, but there is no way that I would tactically vote for them when Jenrick will be running on the same platform as Reform.
In such a situation, I can't help thinking back to the 2002 French election and the slogans of "vote for the crook, not for the fascist". Although the applicability of that would require the two options to actually have different policies.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
He's not openly anti-black because he wants to concentrate on what he believes he can paint as the main 'enemy': Muslims. I see no indication that he is in any way pro-blacks, or pro-Asians, for that matter. If it was not Muslims, some other group would be the focus of his hate.
He's a racist, and he encourages racism of all sorts.
Read his history, he’s anti-Muslim for very specific personal reasons - which we are not allowed to discuss on here
You can get married where you like (sort of) although this seems to be a pre-emptive announcement of changes that will be made at some point in the future when the government gets around to it. And one can't help suspecting that £535 million belongs on the side of a bus.
Excellent news if true. I have said for the years that the single best reform any Government could make to marriage is to allow you to marry in any location, but give the Registrar the power to refuse if you took the piss with something that disrespected the occasion.
The wedding tax whereby the same venue costs more for a wedding than a birthday party (where the market is wider) has always been unjust.
I fear this will increase the wedding tax but lead to emptier churches and registry offices.
Yes on close inspection I can see it’s just adding a few more venues. I am convinced the answer is to empower the Registrar (or vicar etc. - I can never remember if they have powers to marry through a different route or just qualify as a Registrar as well). I suppose the risk of that is them all taking kickbacks from favoured venues.
When we got married the limitations were quite strict. We didn't like our registry office, but liked another which we didn't qualify for. We lied about our address using a friend's address. We didn't realise they would ask us to confirm the address at the ceremony and we fumbled over it, but got away with it. Not sure we are actually married.
Interesting. In Scotland you don't need to use the local office - another one will do. Which was a blessing for us, as the one in our local authority is really grim, whereas the one we used in the next LA is lovely with a garden outside.
My partner is an assistant registrar and very occasionally she’ll take weddings outside the GCC area but usually as a favour for someone she knows. An application needs to be made with some extra paperwork so it’s a bit of a faff. As ever they’re short staffed so prefer just to deal with Glaswegian nuptials. I think George Square has 3 separate wedding suites which are at least in an impressive building even if the interiors are a bit 1970s Highland hotel (or at least the one I was called up to when couples weren’t able to rustle up witnesses).
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
The same centrists happy to throw ‘plastic patriot’ about too !
Of all those currently incarcerated for terrorism related offences, more than 60% are categorised as holding extremist Islamist views.
Over 90% of terrorism related deaths in the UK this century have been at the hands of those identified as Islamist extremists.
Estimates put the proportion of British Muslims aged 18-30 that travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS as high as 2.4 per 1000.
Some polling indicates that the number of British Muslims that think Hamas did not commit rape or murder on 7th Oct outnumber those that do by as much as 1.5x.
If you told someone in 2001 these things, I suspect they would be rather surprised when you then told them that since 2001, policy makers have overseen a near three fold increase in the uk’s Muslim population, and allowed shariah councils to embed themselves in the uk, with a 7-8 fold increase in the same period.
I know it will upset people me posting all the above. But it is hard not to conclude that we learnt some profoundly wrong lessons since 2001.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
So that video of 2 black men playing with a white child didn't happen then?
His entire evidence was the colour of their skins.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
I'm abroad at the moment so don't have any impression of the marches. I absolutely agree that anti-semitism is evil, and also baffling, like being against anyone over 6 feet tall or some other irrelevant issue. However, it is almost as impossible to defend Netanyahu's policies and "anti-Zionist" is a convenient a shorthand for saying that as any that I can think of. I'm Jewish by descent and traditionally pro-Israel, but I see nothing defensible in their current policies. I describe that as being anti-Zionist but not anti-semitic (which would inter alia mean being against myself). In fact, I think that Netanyhu's policies are keeping anti-semitism alive (precisely through the delibarely conflation of Israeli policies with Jewishness), when it would otherwise have disappeared along with flat-earthism and other weird beliefs. I'm not wedded to the wording but we shoulldn't get hung up on that - a rational position is to be opposed to Israeli policy while regarding anti-semitism with contempt.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
So that video of him accusing 2 black men playing with a white child, accusing them of being paedophiles didn't happen then?
His entire evidence was the colour of their skins.
Tommeh is so unracist he didn’t even notice the colour of those blokes’ skin. FACT.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Excellent comment @Cyclefree - and yes, absolutely, many of the protestors last night weren’t just lamenting Gaza they were gleefully exulting in the Manchester attacks. The triumphant flag waving, the horrific chanting, the body language of Joy - and then the violence. Repulsive
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
He's not openly anti-black because he wants to concentrate on what he believes he can paint as the main 'enemy': Muslims. I see no indication that he is in any way pro-blacks, or pro-Asians, for that matter. If it was not Muslims, some other group would be the focus of his hate.
He's a racist, and he encourages racism of all sorts.
Read his history, he’s anti-Muslim for very specific personal reasons - which we are not allowed to discuss on here
No, he's a racist because he's a racist pile of ****.
Some discussion last night on protests not being illegal - even if in appalling bad taste.
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
Netanyahu is the sort of person that makes evacuation of child refugees necessary
The sort of people who protest and organise actions against genocides now, are the same sort of people who would have protested and organised in the 30s and 40s, who would have or did organise aid to former Yugoslavia, who protested against apartheid and so on. The medics volunteering for humanitarian charities, those trying to get food and medical supplies to people, they have the same humanitarian instincts as those who have done similar throughout the ages.
People are not good, bad or indifferent because of their nationality, religion or ethnicity but their words and deeds.
Sarah Mullally, the Bishop of London, has been announced as the next Archbishop of Canterbury by Downing Street.
She will be the first female Archbishop in history and a good choice in my view
What are the factors that make her a good choice?
I know very little about CofE Bishops, or internal politics.
Possibly some factors, and it could be a very good tactical move minimising institutional risks - maybe. But this all depends on how she leads and what she does.
Senior management experience, and dealing with institutions and establishments - she was the youngest ever Chief Nurse for England.
She has 10 years experience of being a Bishop, including 7 at London. So she has key relationships inside and many outside the Church already in place.
London Diocese is very diverse, so she has been leading across traditions and factions in the CofE.
London Diocese is the place where there has been growth in the church over 3+ decades, which means she has some experience of non-decline of the Church of England, which may inure her against a "management of decline"mindset. I'm not all over the detail of that over recent years.
She is 63, so 7 years left to normal retirement - which is 70. So it has a "half way between transitional and the normal decade" feel to it.
One wrinkle is that the normal international ructions come up at and around the worldwide gathering of Bishops at the Lambeth Conference. That would be expected around a female ABC, but she is due to retire in March 2032, a few months before the Lambeth Conference is due in I think summer 2032. Is there's a Sir Humphrey in there somewhere (What about this, Minister?) ?
Of all those currently incarcerated for terrorism related offences, more than 60% are categorised as holding extremist Islamist views.
Over 90% of terrorism related deaths in the UK this century have been at the hands of those identified as Islamist extremists.
Estimates put the proportion of British Muslims aged 18-30 that travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS as high as 2.4 per 1000.
Some polling indicates that the number of British Muslims that think Hamas did not commit rape or murder on 7th Oct outnumber those that do by as much as 1.5x.
If you told someone in 2001 these things, I suspect they would be rather surprised when you then told them that since 2001, policy makers have overseen a near three fold increase in the uk’s Muslim population, and allowed shariah councils to embed themselves in the uk, with a 7-8 fold increase in the same period.
I know it will upset people me posting all the above. But it is hard not to conclude that we learnt some profoundly wrong lessons since 2001.
It’s a nightmare and it’s getting worse
In a weird way, the “protests” last night were more disturbing, to me, than the attack in Manchester
That is to say: we’ve sadly suffered many Muslim terror attacks before. But I’m not sure we’ve ever seen gleeful flag-waving crowds, in Britain, going out to celebrate them: the same day
Of all those currently incarcerated for terrorism related offences, more than 60% are categorised as holding extremist Islamist views.
Over 90% of terrorism related deaths in the UK this century have been at the hands of those identified as Islamist extremists.
Estimates put the proportion of British Muslims aged 18-30 that travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS as high as 2.4 per 1000.
Some polling indicates that the number of British Muslims that think Hamas did not commit rape or murder on 7th Oct outnumber those that do by as much as 1.5x.
If you told someone in 2001 these things, I suspect they would be rather surprised when you then told them that since 2001, policy makers have overseen a near three fold increase in the uk’s Muslim population, and allowed shariah councils to embed themselves in the uk, with a 7-8 fold increase in the same period.
I know it will upset people me posting all the above. But it is hard not to conclude that we learnt some profoundly wrong lessons since 2001.
Amazing what you can do with stats:
Since 1970 there have been 3395 related terrorist deaths in the UK (in GB 430) Since 2001 there have been under 100 related terrorist deaths, the majority in one incident
In most years since 2001 the number is between 0 and 4 and every year before 2001 the number of deaths exceed nearly every year after 2001.
The vast majority of those deaths since 1970 are Northern Island related.
Of course that does not mean there isn't a problem to resolve, but lets keep things in proportion and stop distorting stats (or at least look into the actual make up of those stats)
That is some additional grim news from the Manchester attack. Assuming that the police officers were acting sensibly, feel deeply sorry for them and those who got caught in the crossfire.
Another reminder of why it's so important that the use of firearms in the UK is kept to an absolute minimum both via gun control and strict conditions on their use by the police.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
Maybe you should put around your jokey comments, it's not always easy to tell.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
Maybe you should put around your jokey comments, it's not always easy to tell.
OKAAY, apparently tags are removed when posting. I was suggesting start and end 'giraffe' tags around such comments
Another one of the many high profile military departures since Trump took office. Gen. Thomas Bussiere, a top Air Force General who was nominated by Trump to become the next Air Force Chief of Staff, resigned after Hegseth/Trump’s farce of a military meeting this week.
One of victims killed in attack believed to have been shot by police, GMP says
One of the victims killed in yesterday's attack was believed to have been shot by police, Greater Manchester Police have just said.
BBC report suggests he and another person shot but not killed were behind the synagogue door, helping to keep it shut.
ETA: Questions (as in I'm curious, not suggesting fault) as to what the door was made from and what ammunition the police use - I'd always assumed something unlikely to penetrate far in other materials for obvious reasons. But some doors are pretty flimsy.
Of all those currently incarcerated for terrorism related offences, more than 60% are categorised as holding extremist Islamist views.
Over 90% of terrorism related deaths in the UK this century have been at the hands of those identified as Islamist extremists.
Estimates put the proportion of British Muslims aged 18-30 that travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS as high as 2.4 per 1000.
Some polling indicates that the number of British Muslims that think Hamas did not commit rape or murder on 7th Oct outnumber those that do by as much as 1.5x.
If you told someone in 2001 these things, I suspect they would be rather surprised when you then told them that since 2001, policy makers have overseen a near three fold increase in the uk’s Muslim population, and allowed shariah councils to embed themselves in the uk, with a 7-8 fold increase in the same period.
I know it will upset people me posting all the above. But it is hard not to conclude that we learnt some profoundly wrong lessons since 2001.
It’s a nightmare and it’s getting worse
In a weird way, the “protests” last night were more disturbing, to me, than the attack in Manchester
That is to say: we’ve sadly suffered many Muslim terror attacks before. But I’m not sure we’ve ever seen gleeful flag-waving crowds, in Britain, going out to celebrate them: the same day
It’s become rather trendy in the last few weeks to bash Farage for importing Americanisms into his political language. Oh no! He mispronounced Antifa!
Those gleeful “protests” last night were a disturbing parallel to the similar phenomenon after the Kirk murder. Far worse in fact, because it wasn’t just brain farts on social media, but large groups in public places.
OT - The analysis of SW Norfolk is correct. Our Lab MP was elected solely to get shot of Liz Truss. I'm sure he is as aware as everyone else that he is a one-term MP. I think most assumed the Cons would feel a better candidate (ANY other Con candidate would have won in 2024) and easiltyregain the seat. Now it seems clear - even this far out - that Ref UK are massive favourites here.
Perhaps more notably the Cons had a much better result in NW Norfolk in 2024. However, as we stand, Reform UK also have to be huge favourites there. The tradLab voters and most of the traditional Con support haveboth gone across en masse.
Of course to win anything close to a majority (or even the basis of a coalition) Reform UK absolutely MUST win seats like these. They aren't a luxury - they are a necessity
One of victims killed in attack believed to have been shot by police, GMP says
One of the victims killed in yesterday's attack was believed to have been shot by police, Greater Manchester Police have just said.
BBC report suggests he and another person shot but not killed were behind the synagogue door, helping to keep it shut.
That makes sense. In the video you can see the peelers slotting the terrorist (as they had to do, they could not know his suicide vest was fake). There was a door right behind him, which bullets presumably pierced
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I hope that the new Archbishop is less of a Cantaur than her predecessor.
She was Chief Nursing Officer before she got ordained and has significant executive experience as Bishop of London as well and seems committed to improving safeguarding in the C of E
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
Maybe you should put around your jokey comments, it's not always easy to tell.
OKAAY, apparently tags are removed when posting. I was suggesting start and end 'giraffe' tags around such comments
<giraffe>jokey comment</giraffe> is a bit of a faff to type out.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Good morning and thank you
It was one of several comments made by an important public figure in the fight against anti semiitism live in Sky
And that's why its right to post it here. Its part of the discussion even if what they said is rampant bullshit. Sadly we will hear a lot about "antifa" as we continue down the Farage Trump Putin political axis. When they look for antifa, send them in my direction. I am antifa.
Are you? How do you define Antifa, and how are *you* Antifa?
(Personally, I think defining yourself by that Americanism is deeply unhelpful...)
There's a long British tradition of Antifa, from Cable St on to the "Rock against Racism" and "Anti-Nazi League" of my youth.
Not to mention the boatloads of armed and dangerous Antifa who crossed the channel without passports in June 1944, albeit leaving rather than entering Britain.
That's anti-fascism. It's not necessarily synonymous with the US groups' aims.
You can have anti-fascists on the centre-right as well, and I fear the hard-left Communists are no better than fascists.
Antifa is simply an abbreviation of anti-facist.
Sure Trump and his goons misuse the word, just as they do with "Woke", but we shouldn't normalise that misuse.
If you're an anti-fascist, say you're an anti-fascist. Don't align yourself with the US - but if you do, don't complain about the UK hard right aligning with MAGA.
Read the article you just posted:
"Antifa is not a unified organization but rather a movement without a hierarchical leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals. The movement is loosely affiliated, and has no chain of command, with antifa groups instead sharing "resources and information about far-right activity across regional and national borders through loosely knit networks and informal relationships of trust and solidarity." "
ANTIFA is a fairy story. Antifa is an ideal - to be anti-fascist. I am antifa. This "ANTIFA" terrorist organisation is who? Where? What? "Autonomous Groups and Individuals" - not connected to each other other than through an ideal and "solidarity"
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
Also: that white Britons would become a minority in their own capital city. Ditto Manchester and other cities
Unthinkable NF race-baiting 50 years ago. Now a fact
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim landlord and all my neighbours were Muslims. Brick Lane and environs and all the areas heading towards Commercial Road and Commercial Street were all majority Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
Interesting findings from the Yougov MRP, close but no cigar for a Reform majority
Bound to be a lot of 3 and 4 way marginals next time, even this far out.
It looks like the seats the Tories are more likely to hold onto are more affluent, with less of a working class vote for Reform to squeeze.
One result which stands out is reform taking the Carrick/S Ayrshire seat by 8%. Hexham stays Labour under these results
Head says to me this could be peak Reform but politics is very volatile right now and anything can happen. I expect we are nearing the end game for FPTP if this is borne out
35% in a constituency will take most seats, 30% a lot of them. Makes some surprising holds and losses likely Regarding Carrick etc, colour me skeptical. I don't see it but the Doon valley Holyrood seat will give us an idea. Theres also the Ayr North by election shortly. I suspect whomever of Ref or Con gets knocked out first will see their transfers push the other over the line
Cant see the Carrick MRP figures replicating next year but you never know
There's an independent running in Ayr North, Wullie Hogg. I think he could poll very well but it may be a stretch to take the seat. He's getting his word out there at least. Ayr north is definitely one of the more Reform friendly wards in Ayrshire
Sarah Mulally as next ABP. The Church Times is a good place to watch.
The Church Times will have a lot of coverage from different angles, and you get two free articles a month with a free account, or it archives successfully. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/
Next week's letters page will also be one to look at for a range of thoughtful views.
1 - Problems will be more international, rather than within the UK. There is potential for eg "Primus inter Pares" for the Anglican Communion to be split from "Archbishop of Canterbury" as a Via Media to keep the show on the road, or something similar. 2 - One significant point will be about how marginal the story becomes across our media. If it is niche, that speaks to a marginalisation of the Church of England, and the Bishops in the Lords are at risk. 3 - When listening to Justin Welby's poorly judged standing-down speech in the Lords (and I've generally been a fan on JW) she had a face like thunder throughout afaics, whilst the male Bishops sitting behind chuckled a little at his couple of quips. That is a positive indicator, perhaps. 4 - Some have personal questions about her on things in London Diocese. I don't know enough to comment on how material these are. https://youtu.be/2Uerg54oTJQ?t=283
Starmer though atheist with a Jewish wife warmly welcomed Mullally's appointment so the Bishops look safe in the Lords with him.
Farage wants a fully elected upper house anyway, so there would be no Lords to be in with a Reform government. Albeit Farage still describes himself as a lapsed Anglican, Davey is a practising Anglican. Badenoch is an agnostic cultural Christian married to a Roman Catholic but given current polls her views on the Bishops and C of E mean little anyway.
Prince William has said he wants the head of the Commonwealth to rotate amongst Commonwealth heads of state when he is King. I suspect head of the Anglican Communion to rotate amongst global Anglican Archbishops ultimately too
Hard to lay any blame at the door of Manchester police. They acted fast with limited intelligence on what threat they were facing, against a determined assassin who apparently was wearing a "suicide belt". If they held back, more would likely have been killed.
Have much sympathy for the officer who fired the fatal shot into the victim. He was doing his best. The alternative is a situation where we watch a young person drown because no risk assessment has been undertaken for the officer to go into the water to save him.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
Heh. A female Arch Bishop. Let’s see how the Anglican Churches overseas react to that…
What about God? How will She react?
It's about time the monotheistic religions re-organized based on the views that really matter to them, to make things simpler for the rest of us ... e.g
Misogynists and homophobes - Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Islam, conservative Jews, conservative Anglicans and Protestants, white US Churchs
More liberal / airy fairy - CoE, liberal Jews, black US Churchs, Quakers, Methodists etc
Billy Graham sometimes used to preach along the lines of 'at the judgement your life will be on a video recording in front of God'. This would be Mission England / Mission Sheffield time, so 1984-85.
The current lot of TV Preachers backing Trump would likely regard him as liberal and not political enough.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
Also: that white Britons would become a minority in their own capital city. Ditto Manchester and other cities
Unthinkable NF race-baiting 50 years ago. Now a fact
We've already covered the White Britons in London ambiguity part extensively, though. White anglo/celts are probably a minority in London, whereas White Britons probably aren't, due to the government still not clarifying the census categories correctly.
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
"Had a muslim" what? The mind boggles...
I hit 'post' too soon :-)
"I had that problem with a chick last night..." (with thanks to Family Guy)
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
I presume you mean me? Then yes I have a close Muslim friend
However at the moment he’s in hospital for alcohol-related illness, bless him, so maybe not a 100% tip-top perfect Muslim friend
Some bonkers comments on here last night, of which @Big_G_NorthWales was not one of them.
"Antifa" is bonkers. Its an idea, not a terrorist organisation. I am antifa. But Big G is quoting someone important mentioning it - which makes it relevant to post on here.
What else did we have. "every sane Patriotic Brit" have to vote for Farage - Mr Russia who went to American demanding economic sanctions on us.
A "civil war" if Reform win the election or "eventual islamic takeover" if they don't. Riiiiiiiiight.
This forum is a microcosm of the real world. We have representatives from most elements of real world politics. And we need to try switching off and back on again as everyone has lost it.
Calm down. The “every sane patriotic Brit” remark was me having a giraffe. I know it winds up the Centrist Duds
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
If you’d have suggested, fifty or sixty years ago, that London would have a Muslim mayor, entire neighbourhoods in big cities would be almost entirely Muslim, churches were disappearing but mosques were increasing, and there were half a dozen MPs elected solely on the back of a bloc of Islamic votes, they’d have called you an absolute loon who was scaremongering. And that’s not to mention 7/7, Lee Rigby, Manchester Arena etc
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
I lived in Aldgate East in the last 1990s, which was 30 years ago, and had a Muslim landlord and all my neighbours were Muslims. Brick Lane and environs and all the areas heading towards Commercial Road and Commercial Street were all majority Muslim.
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
Hence the peak reaction to multiculturalism is in going from 99% white to 95%, tending to dissipate below that.
OT - The analysis of SW Norfolk is correct. Our Lab MP was elected solely to get shot of Liz Truss. I'm sure he is as aware as everyone else that he is a one-term MP. I think most assumed the Cons would feel a better candidate (ANY other Con candidate would have won in 2024) and easiltyregain the seat. Now it seems clear - even this far out - that Ref UK are massive favourites here.
Perhaps more notably the Cons had a much better result in NW Norfolk in 2024. However, as we stand, Reform UK also have to be huge favourites there. The tradLab voters and most of the traditional Con support haveboth gone across en masse.
Of course to win anything close to a majority (or even the basis of a coalition) Reform UK absolutely MUST win seats like these. They aren't a luxury - they are a necessity
Id agree Reform are favourite in both. The flaccid Tory effort in Thetford Castle recently suggests they have not recovered from Truss there and the Bagge votes aren't coming home (yet in any case). NW Norfolk will be close up by the Burnhams and Heachem and Hunstanton etc but Reform will clean up in Lynn to win it as it stands. Tories best bets in Norfolk are Mid Norfolk although Dereham will be ripe Reform, Broadland and Fakenham probably the best bet. They might retake South Norfolk from Labour. North Norfolk will be interesting if the LD national vote dips below 2024 (but Con and Ref might fight to a standstill in 2nd)
Comments
Theres a Ben Elton born every minute
She will be the first female Archbishop in history and a good choice in my view
Well in the one in London the protesters were shouting an Arab slogan demanding the beheading of Jews. That is not protest. Nor is it free speech. It is incitement to violence which has always been an exception to free speech. Those protestors should be arrested and charged and protests which go round chanting slogans calling for the death of Jews should be banned.
As for the poster last night saying that Netanyahu was responsible for the rise in anti-semitism, this is so disgusting on so many levels. First, because it blames Jews for what evil people do to them. Second because it reveals the lie at the heart of so many of these protests - that they are only against Zionism, only against what Israel does, not against Jews generally. But this is not true is it. The use of the word Zionism has been a convenient way to launder anti-semitism into the discourse here and to justify attacks on and vile language against Jews here. That is why there has been a rise in anti-semitism here.
There are genuine and well-founded serious criticisms to be made of Israel's conduct, much of it made by Israelis themselves. But much of it is not made in any sort of good faith, much of it is barely disguised anti-semitism or is used to justify hatred of Jews outside Israel. The use of the word "Zionist" is utterly disingenuous and is similar to those on the Tommy Robinson side who say that they anti- Islam when in reality we know and they know we know that they use "Islam" and "Muslim" as a figleaf to mean "blacks" or "Pakistanis" etc. Let's not fool ourselves: exactly the same is happening with the use of the word "Zionist" and it is long past the time for these protesters to be called out on this.
I note also that one of the protests was in Liverpool Street Station - site of the memorial to the Kindertransport. The people protesting last night struck me as the sort of people who in another era were those who made the Kindertransport necessary.
People are unhappy with this govt as it’s failing. Not due to 33% voting for it.
I know very little about CofE Bishops, or internal politics.
His view is to to condemn yesterday's atrocity, and to carry on condemning the Israeli government's actions.
https://x.com/ToryFibs/status/1974014180865835205
I assume the likely 10ish unionist MPs would be happy to be in a Reform coalition, which changes things, Reform could then close any gap with ambitious Conservative defectors rather than the Conservative party.
My hunch would be that FPTP has a fair amount of inertia and that Reform won't surge to ~300 in one GE.
If the current OPs reflect the votes at the next GE then a Labour collapse with Reform ~200, Con ~100, LD ~100.
Pessimistically, UK then following other European countries with a Ref/Con/LD coalition, then Reform, having been further normalised, then getting ~300 at the following GE.
Lots of governments have become unpopular due to failing, but the depth of this governments unpopularity, so soon and before they can do anything half as wrong as previous governments, is I think because there's a sense that it having a landslide majority on a small share of the vote is taking the piss.
Farage is trying to do it from 5 seats and 30% 3 and a half years out.
The 'non voters' are voting Reform right now. The 'voters' are still sitting on their hands.
Another pattern out of the locals id expect to see on steroids at a GE using Brentwood last night as example....... Reform breakthrough and Tories lost vote share but the other 3 parties lost proportionately more of their vote. The non Ref vote will start to coalesce more as we approach a national vote
Ceremonies then become completely a matter for the couple, no licensing necessary.
Bound to be a lot of 3 and 4 way marginals next time, even this far out.
It looks like the seats the Tories are more likely to hold onto are more affluent, with less of a working class vote for Reform to squeeze.
One result which stands out is reform taking the Carrick/S Ayrshire seat by 8%. Hexham stays Labour under these results
Head says to me this could be peak Reform but politics is very volatile right now and anything can happen. I expect we are nearing the end game for FPTP if this is borne out
Tanker seized off France is believed to have been used for ‘hybrid war’ attacks in Denmark and Germany
A Russian shadow-fleet ship raided by the French authorities could be linked to nine drone attacks on European airports and other infrastructure.
The Boracay, an 18-year-old tanker, left Russia on Sept 20 and sailed through the Baltic, where a string of mysterious swarms of drones were launched over the past two weeks.
A Telegraph analysis of tracking data puts the ship at the scene of the unexplained drone incursions, which Western leaders have warned are part of Moscow’s hybrid war against Nato and its allies.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/10/02/russian-ship-linked-to-drone-attacks/ (£££)
For a start, you could ALSO vote for Advance
The leader of Reform has a long history of being swayed by Putin’s propaganda
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/b32e132236329422
Gift link avoids paywall.
The article gives some analysis but I'd suggest Farage in his golf club bore mode tends to believe the last thing he has heard, which is why he mixes Russian and MAGA talking points.
Misogynists and homophobes - Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Islam, conservative Jews, conservative Anglicans and Protestants, white US Churchs
More liberal / airy fairy - CoE, liberal Jews, black US Churchs, Quakers, Methodists etc
Regarding Carrick etc, colour me skeptical. I don't see it but the Doon valley Holyrood seat will give us an idea. Theres also the Ayr North by election shortly. I suspect whomever of Ref or Con gets knocked out first will see their transfers push the other over the line
It’s effectively FU signees.
Hopefully Starmer will shelve it, to stabilise his leadership position, and win back more votes to the left, which seems to be the strategy since the conference speech where he didnf mention it. The policy now only has 34% support.
You’re wrong on one minor point tho. Tommy Robinson is not anti-black, if you look at his background there is no evidence for this, quite the contrary. He is a thug and a demagogue and wildly anti-Muslim - that’s his thing
However I’m sure plenty of his nastier followers are racist in the way you say
There was some talk downstream about the SDP. Worth remembering that they brought to the party some serious politicians with cabinet experience - Jenkins, Owen, Williams plus several more competent juniors. So far, Reform has only Farage, who is no-one's idea of a competent man of government. And as for his followers - don't ask.
Whatever happen, Reform will prove short-lived. They either fail to maintain momentum, don't win the election, and then disappear when Farage steps down, and the Tories recover. Or else, they win, form a Government, and collapse under the pressure of office and events. Just imagine what a Reform-majority parliamentary party would look like. "Strong and stable"?
These are two small Kentish villages, the sort where everyone knows your business. It's also been threatened by a very large housing development of 5000 houses which will likely by filled with DFLs (Down from London). Seems that Reform picked up a large NOTA vote. Given we have a policy vacuum from both Reform and Conservatives (apart from bash themuns) then these sorts of low level changes will continue.
Perhaps the Conservatives should replace Kemi with Kimi to fill their policy vacuum.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/reform-uk-sweep-to-victory-in-by-election-330656/
I'd say that on average the results (if the model and sampling have been done well) will be about right - i.e. you'll probably find it does pretty well overall on a constituency basis, even if adding up the totals based on most likely winner in each (but where the difference is very marginal in a lot of constituencies it could easily be far off on that kind of analysis if slightly out on vote shares) and more certainly if adding up seats based on fractional seats won (implied chance in each seat). But for an individual seat that samples for any local factors are indeed small and can easily miss things.
So, anything that looks interesting needs some thought and maybe some local knowledge. We all remember Canterbury, won on demographic voting shifts and there may be others like that if, e.g., we see young people deserting Labour for Greens or the Magic Grandpa Raisin party. But local knowledge of strong candidates, local issues or tacit inter-party collaboration would likely not be well picked up in the predictions and so that knowledge should probably trump what the model says.
It's always possible, as always, for people to screw up the models too, over-compensating for a one-off event or missing important factors.
The Church Times will have a lot of coverage from different angles, and you get two free articles a month with a free account, or it archives successfully.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/
Next week's letters page will also be one to look at for a range of thoughtful views.
Also: "What lies ahead for the new Archbishop?" Podcast from 19/9.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/19-september/audio-video/podcast/podcast-what-lies-ahead-for-the-next-archbishop-of-canterbury
My calls:
1 - Problems will be more international, rather than within the UK. There is potential for eg "Primus inter Pares" for the Anglican Communion to be split from "Archbishop of Canterbury" as a Via Media to keep the show on the road, or something similar.
2 - One significant point will be about how marginal the story becomes across our media. If it is niche, that speaks to a marginalisation of the Church of England, and the Bishops in the Lords are at risk.
3 - When listening to Justin Welby's poorly judged standing-down speech in the Lords (and I've generally been a fan on JW) she had a face like thunder throughout afaics, whilst the male Bishops sitting behind chuckled a little at his couple of quips. That is a positive indicator, perhaps.
4 - Some have personal questions about her on things in London Diocese. I don't know enough to comment on how material these are.
https://youtu.be/2Uerg54oTJQ?t=283
He's a racist, and he encourages racism of all sorts.
https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Sorting_Hat
Over 90% of terrorism related deaths in the UK this century have been at the hands of those identified as Islamist extremists.
Estimates put the proportion of British Muslims aged 18-30 that travelled to Syria to fight for ISIS as high as 2.4 per 1000.
Some polling indicates that the number of British Muslims that think Hamas did not commit rape or murder on 7th Oct outnumber those that do by as much as 1.5x.
If you told someone in 2001 these things, I suspect they would be rather surprised when you then told them that since 2001, policy makers have overseen a near three fold increase in the uk’s Muslim population, and allowed shariah councils to embed themselves in the uk, with a 7-8 fold increase in the same period.
I know it will upset people me posting all the above. But it is hard not to conclude that we learnt some profoundly wrong lessons since 2001.
His entire evidence was the colour of their skins.
FACT.
I don't think the government understands how much anger this kind of dismissive reply causes, it just confirms they will do what they want regardless.
And so are those who support him.
The sort of people who protest and organise actions against genocides now, are the same sort of people who would have protested and organised in the 30s and 40s, who would have or did organise aid to former Yugoslavia, who protested against apartheid and so on.
The medics volunteering for humanitarian charities, those trying to get food and medical supplies to people, they have the same humanitarian instincts as those who have done similar throughout the ages.
People are not good, bad or indifferent because of their nationality, religion or ethnicity but their words and deeds.
Senior management experience, and dealing with institutions and establishments - she was the youngest ever Chief Nurse for England.
She has 10 years experience of being a Bishop, including 7 at London. So she has key relationships inside and many outside the Church already in place.
London Diocese is very diverse, so she has been leading across traditions and factions in the CofE.
London Diocese is the place where there has been growth in the church over 3+ decades, which means she has some experience of non-decline of the Church of England, which may inure her against a "management of decline"mindset. I'm not all over the detail of that over recent years.
She is 63, so 7 years left to normal retirement - which is 70. So it has a "half way between transitional and the normal decade" feel to it.
One wrinkle is that the normal international ructions come up at and around the worldwide gathering of Bishops at the Lambeth Conference. That would be expected around a female ABC, but she is due to retire in March 2032, a few months before the Lambeth Conference is due in I think summer 2032. Is there's a Sir Humphrey in there somewhere (What about this, Minister?)
In a weird way, the “protests” last night were more disturbing, to me, than the attack in Manchester
That is to say: we’ve sadly suffered many Muslim terror attacks before. But I’m not sure we’ve ever seen gleeful flag-waving crowds, in Britain, going out to celebrate them: the same day
One of the victims killed in yesterday's attack was believed to have been shot by police, Greater Manchester Police have just said.
Since 1970 there have been 3395 related terrorist deaths in the UK (in GB 430)
Since 2001 there have been under 100 related terrorist deaths, the majority in one incident
In most years since 2001 the number is between 0 and 4 and every year before 2001 the number of deaths exceed nearly every year after 2001.
The vast majority of those deaths since 1970 are Northern Island related.
Of course that does not mean there isn't a problem to resolve, but lets keep things in proportion and stop distorting stats (or at least look into the actual make up of those stats)
Lovely stuff.
Another reminder of why it's so important that the use of firearms in the UK is kept to an absolute minimum both via gun control and strict conditions on their use by the police.
Social media use appears to be on the decline. Everywhere (except maybe the USA)
https://www.ft.com/content/a0724dd9-0346-4df3-80f5-d6572c93a863?accessToken=zwAGQD8XWlgQkdOgck3ZA0ZN89OA9dZXLJOoYw.MEQCIGkbSNjr-WkvEMQO_plDnLvvjyLIYF8Q_7ld5Zp2AsOuAiBogl-Yq2gs1jYvoCeEedyPKodKgvz-1OGCcV2Pg7Pkww&sharetype=gift&token=0520a487-7067-4b6b-a568-984e3b066551
Arguably the more honourable thing to do is to stay and try to limit the damage from inside at the risk of being tainted by being “Trump’s man”
ETA: Questions (as in I'm curious, not suggesting fault) as to what the door was made from and what ammunition the police use - I'd always assumed something unlikely to penetrate far in other materials for obvious reasons. But some doors are pretty flimsy.
Those gleeful “protests” last night were a disturbing parallel to the similar phenomenon after the Kirk murder. Far worse in fact, because it wasn’t just brain farts on social media, but large groups in public places.
It may change our understanding of interstellar physics, if the cameras get a clear enough picture to explain its anomalies.
Perhaps more notably the Cons had a much better result in NW Norfolk in 2024. However, as we stand, Reform UK also have to be huge favourites there. The tradLab voters and most of the traditional Con support haveboth gone across en masse.
Of course to win anything close to a majority (or even the basis of a coalition) Reform UK absolutely MUST win seats like these. They aren't a luxury - they are a necessity
Sad
But that is where we are, and it’s regarded as completely normal. Actually it’s considered offensive to criticise, or even to merely point it out.
So why would it be odd if we were governed by an Islamic party or the country became majority Muslim in another fifty years or so? The demographics are pointing in that direction. Things change, they have already are are continuing to do so
Does [giraffe]joke[/giraffe] work?
Or we could, you know, use
#itsnot
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdjegvjz3do
"Keeping Up Appearances star Patricia Routledge dies at 96"
Unthinkable NF race-baiting 50 years ago. Now a fact
I went to a school in Bedford from the 80s to the 90s (Biddenham), that was majority Muslim.
The main thing I discovered from this is that Muslims (like Jews and atheists and Christians) are just like everybody else.
Or, let me put it another way, I do wonder if you or @Lenon actually have any close Musliim friends? Because I think when we don't know people in a particular group well, we tend to assume that they are (a) much more homogenous than they are, and (b) that they are much more different to us than they are,
There's an independent running in Ayr North, Wullie Hogg. I think he could poll very well but it may be a stretch to take the seat. He's getting his word out there at least. Ayr north is definitely one of the more Reform friendly wards in Ayrshire
look safe in the Lords with him.
Farage wants a fully elected
upper house anyway, so there
would be no Lords to be in with
a Reform government. Albeit
Farage still describes himself
as a lapsed Anglican, Davey is a
practising Anglican. Badenoch is an agnostic cultural Christian married to a Roman Catholic but given current polls her views on the Bishops and C of E mean little anyway.
Prince William has said he wants the head of the Commonwealth to rotate amongst Commonwealth heads of state when he is King. I suspect head of the Anglican Communion to rotate amongst global Anglican Archbishops ultimately too
Have much sympathy for the officer who fired the fatal shot into the victim. He was doing his best. The alternative is a situation where we watch a young person drown because no risk assessment has been undertaken for the officer to go into the water to save him.
The current lot of TV Preachers backing Trump would likely regard him as liberal and not political enough.
However at the moment he’s in hospital for alcohol-related illness, bless him, so maybe not a 100% tip-top perfect Muslim friend
Tories best bets in Norfolk are Mid Norfolk although Dereham will be ripe Reform, Broadland and Fakenham probably the best bet. They might retake South Norfolk from Labour. North Norfolk will be interesting if the LD national vote dips below 2024 (but Con and Ref might fight to a standstill in 2nd)