Breaking news: Composer Philip Glass withdrew his highly anticipated Symphony No. 15 from its scheduled Kennedy Center performance, saying “the values of the Kennedy Center today are in direct conflict with the message of the Symphony.”
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
They're also much less likely to abandon or compromise democracy on the basis of idolising American anti-democrats
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
For a long time the Greens were accused of being a one issue party to be honest.
Goodwin is a politically interesting character within Reform. He's well to the right of Farage on cultural & migration issues - more like where I expect right-wing politics to go if Farage fails in office.
Looks like Reform are going for the racist vote and will try and win with a low vote share with the left vote split .
Apparently 44% of the population is from an ethnic minority in Gorton and Denton .
Labour need to get their shxt together and stop this self-flaggelation . Briefing that you’re effectively giving up on the seat is crazy,
It's a by-election. Times radio were saying earlier that it was a 2 horse race Reform vs Greens. With a good candidate I would think Greens might win, because really it's Reform vs Anti-Reform.
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
It is most certainly true. They are just as dangerous and economic lunatics.
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
Goodwin is a politically interesting character within Reform. He's well to the right of Farage on cultural & migration issues - more like where I expect right-wing politics to go if Farage fails in office.
Bit of a loose cannon, so an interesting choice. Possibly needed more of a firebrand after letting in a bunch of establisment Tories slagging off their own government, which however deserved is an awkward sell.
imo the last fortnight has brought a shift on PB, Reform supporters and apologists getting much more instant pushback.
Maybe it’s a glance across the pond and big realising the party 10%+ ahead in UK polls has merely photocopied the Trump small policy book of simpleton solutions.
The NRA and other gun rights groups would be raising alarms and money off of this statement if said by any president not named Trump. What we’re learning is that these folks only care about Constitutional rights when it’s politically convenient
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
It is most certainly true. They are just as dangerous and economic lunatics.
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
They are just fantasists too.
But at least they are not treasonous fantasists. And they aren't climate change deniers.
Matthew Goodwin was once a really interesting academic.
Anyway, he’s a good debater however he’s said some pretty bad things like black British people aren’t English.
He doesn't think a white person with one foreign grandparent can be British, so Prince William isn't British to him, let alone the King.
Surely not just Prince William and the King, but every British monarch back to ... would it be Elizabeth I, or am I missing someone more recent?
No, you're quite correct (although Elizabeth was English not British).
Although I think by that criteria only a very small number of English monarchs would meet that criteria - Elizabeth and her half-brother, her father, her great grandfather and his brother. After that I'm struggling.
Scotland is I think actually still less qualified - Robert I, David II, Robert II, Robert III, James I and James II were a good run, but then the trend for foreign spouses kicked in again.
It’s somewhere in the unwritten constitution that when the English Royal family gets too English, they are replaced with lower cost immigrants.
Just remember, if it weren't for the English, you'd all be Spanish...
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
Just put price of a brace of pints on Lab for Denton.
Mad I know, but 7 seems value now Goodwin is the candidate.
Goodwin is a 24 carat jerk. Only PB posters know this.
Maybe he'll challenge Farage for the leadership/CEO position.
Not now but if Farage loses not impossible he could on a ticket of linking up with Rupert Lowe, Tommy Robinson, Ben Habib and Advance and shifting harder to nationalism and deportations
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
It is most certainly true. They are just as dangerous and economic lunatics.
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
They are just fantasists too.
But at least they are not treasonous fantasists. And they aren't climate change deniers.
I find it so amusing to see people embracing patriotism simply as a stick to beat Reform with, many of these people, and the parties they support, would simply sell the nation and its sovereignty out to embrace the likes of the European Union.
It’s like their ‘patriotism’ is skin deep and convenient.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
But what is Islamism in people’s minds?
What if in their minds people think Islamism is against modern liberal, secularized societies, on basis they risk moral decay attempting to exist without a spiritual foundation, so Islamism insists on a structured society guided by Islamism principles, comprising a Islamic state. * A Rejection of Neutrality: Islamism against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Islamism values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Islamism principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Islamist. * The Community of Islamism: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Islamism acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
If in your mind all this was Islamism, would you not say you are opposed to that?
An interesting take by Alex Massie on Suella and Reform - I think he's right, and the comparison with Corbyn is instructive:
"... I think adding discredited and unpopular ex-Tory politicians to Reform contradicts Reform’s key message. That message is: The Establishment Parties Have Failed And We Are Different.
"The failure is plausible but it’s hard to argue for Reform’s difference when it becomes a kind of loopy facsimile of past Tory cabinets. This seems a risky ploy for Farage. Liz Truss may not be a member of Reform but we all know that if she votes at the next general election she’s more likely to vote Reform than Conservative.
"I suspect that far from proving Reform is ready for government, this sort of thing confirms they are not. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not the people voting Reform actually want Farage to become Prime Minister. I am not sure they do. Or, to put it another way, it is easier to vote Reform if you think this is really just a protest vote than it is if you think Reform might actually win. If so, the closer Farage comes to Downing Street, the harder it will be for him to actually get there.
"There is some precedent for this. In 2017, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an essentially harmless act of protest. In 2019, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn carried the real risk he might somehow end up in Downing Street. This is the single simplest and most compelling explanation for why Labour did very well in 2017 and very badly in 2019.
"Reform isn’t quite at that stage yet. But it may get there eventually. The sweet spot for Farage is for him to always be on the brink of being a credible Prime Minister without every actually quite being taken seriously as such by the electorate."
I wonder whether those who are hoping against hope that the electorate will vote tactically to keep out Reform ever consider what is likely to happen if our politics just keeps on brushing aside the concerns of so many?
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
Jews don't believe in seeking converts as they are an ethnic group as much as a religion and any conversion has to be strictly approved by a Jewish court
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
'Maccabees' (who inspired the name of the somewhat controversial football team) would probably be the closest.
What has unfolded in Minneapolis this past month betrays our most basic values as Americans. We are not a nation that guns down our citizens in the street. We are not a nation that allows our citizens to be brutalized for exercising their constitutional rights. We are not a nation that tramples the 4th Amendment and tolerates our neighbors being terrorized.
...
No single person can destroy what America stands for and believes in, not even a President, if we — all of America — stand up and speak out.
What has unfolded in Minneapolis this past month betrays our most basic values as Americans. We are not a nation that guns down our citizens in the street. We are not a nation that allows our citizens to be brutalized for exercising their constitutional rights. We are not a nation that tramples the 4th Amendment and tolerates our neighbors being terrorized.
...
No single person can destroy what America stands for and believes in, not even a President, if we — all of America — stand up and speak out.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
"Settlers"?
They’re creating a buffer zone
October 7 proved that they need a bigger one
They actually tried to give Gaza to the Gazans twenty years ago
An interesting take by Alex Massie on Suella and Reform - I think he's right, and the comparison with Corbyn is instructive:
"... I think adding discredited and unpopular ex-Tory politicians to Reform contradicts Reform’s key message. That message is: The Establishment Parties Have Failed And We Are Different.
"The failure is plausible but it’s hard to argue for Reform’s difference when it becomes a kind of loopy facsimile of past Tory cabinets. This seems a risky ploy for Farage. Liz Truss may not be a member of Reform but we all know that if she votes at the next general election she’s more likely to vote Reform than Conservative.
"I suspect that far from proving Reform is ready for government, this sort of thing confirms they are not. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not the people voting Reform actually want Farage to become Prime Minister. I am not sure they do. Or, to put it another way, it is easier to vote Reform if you think this is really just a protest vote than it is if you think Reform might actually win. If so, the closer Farage comes to Downing Street, the harder it will be for him to actually get there.
"There is some precedent for this. In 2017, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an essentially harmless act of protest. In 2019, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn carried the real risk he might somehow end up in Downing Street. This is the single simplest and most compelling explanation for why Labour did very well in 2017 and very badly in 2019.
"Reform isn’t quite at that stage yet. But it may get there eventually. The sweet spot for Farage is for him to always be on the brink of being a credible Prime Minister without every actually quite being taken seriously as such by the electorate."
I wonder whether those who are hoping against hope that the electorate will vote tactically to keep out Reform ever consider what is likely to happen if our politics just keeps on brushing aside the concerns of so many?
I suspect you have a valid point.
The trade off is Reform return people ahead of one in the GP queue from whence they came in exchange for having to pay an insurance premium for one's own place in the queue.
Opinium another pollster to show a positive movement towards Labour.
I think Labour will lead a poll this year and will stake my reputation on it.
You’d be wrong.
It’s mid term. The economy isn’t going amazeballs, and people still hurting from massive cost of living crisis.
Labour could still get a majority at the end of this term though. If economy comes good, and people feel things have got better.
If Labour gets a majority at the end of this term it will be for much the same reason as it did last term, i.e., the alternatives being too awful to contemplate.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Spat between Goodwin and Labour already on him saying 'he was unfortunate enough to be in Manchester' when Tory conference was on https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
I think that it’s quite obvious why so many are not inclined to oppose the evil Islamist regime in Iran: they’re Israel’s greatest enemy. So they can’t be all bad
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Fucking hell
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
POI: I first noticed Goodwin in about 2011 when he was an academic characterising UKIP (the old, Farage-led moderate UKIP) as 'far-right'
(Our study) found that a significant portion of the Ukip base closely resembled that of the BNP: while less intense, they comprise a poorer, more working-class and more deeply disconnected wing within the party that is driven not simply by Euroscepticism but also their profound concern about immigration and dissatisfaction with the three main parties. Ukip denies these associations with the radical right, but both parties are pitching a far-right formula and rallying a radical right base. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/12/ukip-far-right-bnp
Owen Jones, Matthew Godwin, JK Rowling, and Carol Voderman (there are many others) are good examples of how social media and the polarisation it drives can push someone from a nuanced position to a dogmatic one, simply on the behaviours it incentives and rewards.
Opinium another pollster to show a positive movement towards Labour.
I think Labour will lead a poll this year and will stake my reputation on it.
You’d be wrong.
It’s mid term. The economy isn’t going amazeballs, and people still hurting from massive cost of living crisis.
Labour could still get a majority at the end of this term though. If economy comes good, and people feel things have got better.
If Labour gets a majority at the end of this term it will be for much the same reason as it did last term, i.e., the alternatives being too awful to contemplate.
I would not however rule the possibility out.
Any sort of “comeback kid” stuff is on the economy most of all now, nothing else like “I think the others are worse” as “I think the other options are worse” will be based on thinking about the economy and cost of living.
The interesting one from betting angle could be more Labour votes, more % PV, but awful lot less seats, losing lots of close ones all over.
In February 2025, Kisin interviewed Fraser Nelson on his Triggernometry podcast. During the interview, Nelson discussed Rishi Sunak and said "He is absolutely English – he was born and bred here". Kisin responded by saying "He’s a brown Hindu; how is he English?"[44]
Kisin is described in his wiki entry as British. He was born in Moscow to Russian parents. Not sure he is in the best position to pass judgement on who is and is not English.
I am as British as Queen Victoria, you cannot get more British than that.
I can't imagine she'd have worn shoes like that...
Opinium another pollster to show a positive movement towards Labour.
I think Labour will lead a poll this year and will stake my reputation on it.
You’d be wrong.
It’s mid term. The economy isn’t going amazeballs, and people still hurting from massive cost of living crisis.
Labour could still get a majority at the end of this term though. If economy comes good, and people feel things have got better.
If Labour gets a majority at the end of this term it will be for much the same reason as it did last term, i.e., the alternatives being too awful to contemplate.
I would not however rule the possibility out.
I doubt that Labour will get an overall majority - too many other parties will be sharing the cake.
But it think it may well have the most seats, particularly if it changes leader, is more courageous and has a clearer narrative.
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
No one cares about the environment anymore.
That's so 2019.
Apart from Ed Miliband.
Energy for AI seems to be the order of the day. Interesting to see at Davos people people pivoting away from ‘saving the planet’ to the need for energy.
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
No one cares about the environment anymore.
That's so 2019.
Apart from Ed Miliband.
Energy for AI seems to be the order of the day. Interesting to see at Davos people people pivoting away from ‘saving the planet’ to the need for energy.
Mr Fucking Ridiculously Expensive Electricity (FREE) Energy Man?
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
No one cares about the environment anymore.
That's so 2019.
Apart from Ed Miliband.
Energy for AI seems to be the order of the day. Interesting to see at Davos people people pivoting away from ‘saving the planet’ to the need for energy.
Goodwin is a politically interesting character within Reform. He's well to the right of Farage on cultural & migration issues - more like where I expect right-wing politics to go if Farage fails in office.
Bit of a loose cannon, so an interesting choice. Possibly needed more of a firebrand after letting in a bunch of establisment Tories slagging off their own government, which however deserved is an awkward sell.
Andrew Lilico is bonkers, and his ravings inconsistent.
I think Matt Goodwin has gone off the deep-end but I don't believe he's some sort of National Front guy, regardless of how poorly worded some of his tweets have been.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
I think that it’s quite obvious why so many are not inclined to oppose the evil Islamist regime in Iran: they’re Israel’s greatest enemy. So they can’t be all bad
Is true the Mullahs still want Salman Rushdie dead?
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
He won’t ever leave the Tories. Advising them not to bother too much with this by-election is what any decent right-winger would do.
I think that it’s quite obvious why so many are not inclined to oppose the evil Islamist regime in Iran: they’re Israel’s greatest enemy. So they can’t be all bad
Is true the Mullahs still want Salman Rushdie dead?
The NRA and other gun rights groups would be raising alarms and money off of this statement if said by any president not named Trump. What we’re learning is that these folks only care about Constitutional rights when it’s politically convenient
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Fucking hell
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
That might be a valid point if we still lived in the 16th Century where you could be burned at the stake for heresy, and the Church still had its own land and law.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Fucking hell
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
You are right for once Taz! ☺️
It’s my Sunday school lessons.
Based on TS Elliot’s Idea of a Christian Society. Exploring to what extent you have a religious society, or a liberal one.
It’s there in the Trump Administration too isn’t it, and the right wing goons marching now on British Streets, very much the same as Iran, or those fighting for Islamic State.
And the reason why it’s a good lesson, and good to discuss, is Trump, Farage, Iran Supreme Leader and those goons on British Streets have their use of Religion. Which many in the Christian Church leadership call stealing religion for their own advantage and nefarious ends, don’t they?
So what is the motivation? Do they have fear of liberal secular society, a deep down belief secular, liberal, being neutral has gone too far, and deep down belief that “their” civilisation needs to reclaim its religious foundations to avoid "suicide".
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Fucking hell
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
That might be a valid point if we still lived in the 16th Century where you could be burned at the stake for heresy, and the Church still had its own land and law.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Anyone with a self-conscious lack of full stops like that is clearly an utter tossbag.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Davidson could do with some current Tory MPs in that group though, otherwise it just looks like mainly a Ken Clarke and Heseltine and Cameron tribute act.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
I was raised as a Christian. I went full on atheist at about eleven years old. I never got criticised - even by Christians - for that. I can be godless and still be accepted. I respect that
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
I'm no expert, but if we restricted dissertations to only things of academic interest that sounds like it would lead to a severe reduction.
Plus surely the whole idea of dissertations is to do something new? The most interesting new ideas are those that are NOT of existing academic interest.
Indeed that is how science or knowledge in general can often progress. Develop something new, not currently of interest, and people can become interested in it.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Anyone with a self-conscious lack of full stops like that is clearly an utter tossbag.
Sorry I thought the whole statement was by Ruth Davidson. BigG may use full stops as he pleases.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Anyone with a self-conscious lack of full stops like that is clearly an utter tossbag.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
I think it is probably true that the Christian foundations go deeper than people realise, they underestimate the impact of such a long period of intense Christian culture and assume certain things are universal when they are not or, to the extent that certain ideas and norms do crop up all over the world and other cultures, they may not be in quite the same forms.
That being said when reading Holland's Dominion I did feel he was overegging the point a bit much all the same, it was a bit weakly argued in places, and even accepting the foundations doesn't require the kind of overt push that some who raise the point would prefer.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Davidson could do with some current Tory MPs in that group though, otherwise it just looks like mainly a Ken Clarke and Heseltine and Cameron tribute act.
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
I'm no expert, but if we restricted dissertations to only things of academic interest that sounds like it would lead to a severe reduction.
Plus surely the whole idea of dissertations is to do something new? The most interesting new ideas are those that are NOT of existing academic interest.
Indeed that is how science or knowledge in general can often progress. Develop something new, not currently of interest, and people can become interested in it.
The challenge with undergrad and early postgrad dissertations is that... Yes, you want something new, but it's also got to be something that's pretty much certain to work, because otherwise it causes problems for assessment.
But Goodwin's comments don't sound like good dissertation supervision to me. As with Nigel himself, I'm not sure he has a great record of working with people, which is partly why he's ended up where he has.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
Well said. I quite comfortably oppose all organised religions.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Fucking hell
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
You are right for once Taz! ☺️
It’s my Sunday school lessons.
Based on TS Elliot’s Idea of a Christian Society. Exploring to what extent you have a religious society, or a liberal one.
It’s there in the Trump Administration too isn’t it, and the right wing goons marching now on British Streets, very much the same as Iran, or those fighting for Islamic State.
And the reason why it’s a good lesson, and good to discuss, is Trump, Farage, Iran Supreme Leader and those goons on British Streets have their use of Religion. Which many in the Christian Church leadership call stealing religion for their own advantage and nefarious ends, don’t they?
So what is the motivation? Do they have fear of liberal secular society, a deep down belief secular, liberal, being neutral has gone too far, and deep down belief that “their” civilisation needs to reclaim its religious foundations to avoid "suicide".
Each of the words 'liberal, 'neutral' and 'secular' seem to me to need careful elucidation about its meaning and contextual setting in our history leading up to now. Especially 'neutral'. I can have a stab at the others, but with 'neutral' you would have to start from scratch.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
White Evangelicals supporting Trump are close to crusaders in their values - they need a perceived religious war, and a "threat" to loathe, to justify their political programme.
The extreme right (eg Yaxley-Lennon and fellow travellers) aresomething different, who want a religious skin for their polityics, and find the fear and hate driven ideas of medieval Roman Catholic Crusaders transplanted to today to be the most convenient for them.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
This shouldn't be a controversial point, and it's possible to do it without being hateful or a dick.
What an idiot post. Anne Frank was Jewish and the Gestapo were to rounding up all the Jews in Holland with the help of the local police to remove them and take them to camps. Some helped them by hiding them. What's tricky for even a Trump worshipper to understand?
judging by his posts over the last week, sandpit thinks the gestapo were the good guys
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
Well said. I quite comfortably oppose all organised religions.
It's perfectly possible to be religious, or non religious and accept that whatever your views you don't have to regard any other views axiomatically as something to oppose. Try the very 16th century Dean of St Paul's, John Donne:
To adore, or scorn an image, or protest, May all be bad; doubt wisely; in strange way To stand inquiring right, is not to stray; To sleep, or run wrong, is. On a huge hill, Cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will Reach her, about must and about must go, And what the hill's suddenness resists, win so. Yet strive so that before age, death's twilight, Thy soul rest, for none can work in that night.
I just got round to watching Polanski's PPB from last week. As a raging leftie, I found it quite disappointing and, along with other stuff I've read and seen, I've concluded that he's really just a mirror image of Farage. An egotistical one-man band, bit of a charlatan, looking for easy solutions to complex problems. Britain is broken, and here's the easy fix. I'm not sure his appeal will be enduring.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
White Evangelicals supporting Trump are close to crusaders in their values - they need a perceived religious war, and a "threat" to loathe, to justify their political programme.
The extreme right (eg Yaxley-Lennon and fellow travellers) aresomething different, who want a religious skin for their polityics, and find the fear and hate driven ideas of medieval Roman Catholic Crusaders transplanted to today to be the most convenient for them.
And the nationalist hard right use Christian nationalism as a tool to oppose Islam rather than really caring much about Christ's teachings
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
They'll do badly in the by-election, but I see no advantage to them in just giving up.
I'm viewing it from the outside of course (though I have voted Tory before), but Rees-Mogg seems to be coming at it from the point of view that Reform are on the same side as the Tories really, and that seems at odds with how Reform themselves view things, so why assist them?
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
You don't say.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.
Comments
Apparently 44% of the population is from an ethnic minority in Gorton and Denton .
Labour need to get their shxt together and stop this self-flaggelation . Briefing that you’re effectively giving up on the seat is crazy,
Reform are a big danger in that respect.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
Goodwin is a politically interesting character within Reform. He's well to the right of Farage on cultural & migration issues - more like where I expect right-wing politics to go if Farage fails in office.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2016164098702979503
22 Arab States = 13,000,000 sq. km. area
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
They are just fantasists too.
Maybe it’s a glance across the pond and big realising the party 10%+ ahead in UK polls has merely photocopied the Trump small policy book of simpleton solutions.
@chucktodd
The NRA and other gun rights groups would be raising alarms and money off of this statement if said by any president not named Trump. What we’re learning is that these folks only care about Constitutional rights when it’s politically convenient
https://x.com/chucktodd/status/2016207763605524556
I think Labour will lead a poll this year and will stake my reputation on it.
Islamism wants the whole world
https://youtu.be/1vh-wEXvdW8?si=FenXxenEc-5E2Wz4
Or if you prefer the modern version...
https://youtu.be/kL1zs4OKYAU?si=ITICUveku6EGPixW
It’s like their ‘patriotism’ is skin deep and convenient.
What if in their minds people think Islamism is against modern liberal, secularized societies, on basis they risk moral decay attempting to exist without a spiritual foundation, so Islamism insists on a structured society guided by Islamism principles, comprising a Islamic state.
* A Rejection of Neutrality: Islamism against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Islamism values would inevitably fall into chaos.
* Structure:
* The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Islamism principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer.
* The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Islamist.
* The Community of Islamism: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians.
* Islamism acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
If in your mind all this was Islamism, would you not say you are opposed to that?
It’s mid term. The economy isn’t going amazeballs, and people still hurting from massive cost of living crisis.
Labour could still get a majority at the end of this term though. If economy comes good, and people feel things have got better.
@JoeBiden
What has unfolded in Minneapolis this past month betrays our most basic values as Americans. We are not a nation that guns down our citizens in the street. We are not a nation that allows our citizens to be brutalized for exercising their constitutional rights. We are not a nation that tramples the 4th Amendment and tolerates our neighbors being terrorized.
...
No single person can destroy what America stands for and believes in, not even a President, if we — all of America — stand up and speak out.
https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/2016177515845283911
https://x.com/GBPolitcs/status/2016198346751328469?s=20
October 7 proved that they need a bigger one
They actually tried to give Gaza to the Gazans twenty years ago
The trade off is Reform return people ahead of one in the GP queue from whence they came in exchange for having to pay an insurance premium for one's own place in the queue.
I would not however rule the possibility out.
* A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos.
* Structure:
* The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer.
* The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian.
* The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians.
* Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status
https://x.com/UKLabour/status/2016186186289524758?s=202016200940487836008?s=20
That's so 2019.
In fact, throw him out the party?
Aiding and abetting other parties is exactly why people get thrown out parties?
@James_L_Walker
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
I got a 1st 🎓
https://x.com/James_L_Walker/status/2016184708543951355
It’s like a PowerPoint presentation.
Thank god it doesn’t say in the bottom corner 1/75
The interesting one from betting angle could be more Labour votes, more % PV, but awful lot less seats, losing lots of close ones all over.
But it think it may well have the most seats, particularly if it changes leader, is more courageous and has a clearer narrative.
Energy for AI seems to be the order of the day. Interesting to see at Davos people people pivoting away from ‘saving the planet’ to the need for energy.
So it's probably just deal-making.
So it's probably just deal-making.
He'll be a good parliamentarian I think.
I think Matt Goodwin has gone off the deep-end but I don't believe he's some sort of National Front guy, regardless of how poorly worded some of his tweets have been.
This is a very sensible statement by Ruth Davidson
"This is about people that feel that the Conservative party left them but also feel like they don't have a home in Labour or the Liberal Democrats."
Reform with Farage and his discredited mob of ex conservatives imitating Trump's MAGA Act leaves the conservative party at a real crossroads
Either merge with Reform, or far better politically write Reform and Farage off and chart a new course away from the hate and division of Reform/Trump policies and seek to have real discussions with the Davidson - Street group, because that group has talent and unlike the defecting conservatives enormous experience in government
I want a conservative party that talks to a wide section of society and concentrates on 2 key issues, the economy and defence
The economy, and how best to help the young and ordinary people has to be front and centre of thinking with less emphasis on the pensioners vote and certainly, whilst stopping the boats, make the case for sensible legal migration that the county needs
I know this is heresy but rejoing the single market could be a long term objective
Defence needs immediate funding so reinstate the 2 child cap, means test WFA and end the triple lock, no payments for WASPI women, and raise tax if necessary but increase the basic tax allowance
I know the likes of @HYUFD will have a rebuttal, but my response is those on the far right of the party who only seem to want to bash immigrants and even have no immigration at all, and now question what is being British should be confined to the dustbin of our history
I hope the Greens win Gorton, but I expect Reform will but I am convinced they are near or at their highest point and will haemorrhage support over the next 3 years as they are found out for what they are
Thankfully, that is no longer the case.
It’s my Sunday school lessons.
Based on TS Elliot’s Idea of a Christian Society. Exploring to what extent you have a religious society, or a liberal one.
It’s there in the Trump Administration too isn’t it, and the right wing goons marching now on British Streets, very much the same as Iran, or those fighting for Islamic State.
And the reason why it’s a good lesson, and good to discuss, is Trump, Farage, Iran Supreme Leader and those goons on British Streets have their use of Religion. Which many in the Christian Church leadership call stealing religion for their own advantage and nefarious ends, don’t they?
So what is the motivation? Do they have fear of liberal secular society, a deep down belief secular, liberal, being neutral has gone too far, and deep down belief that “their” civilisation needs to reclaim its religious foundations to avoid "suicide".
Thankfully, that is no longer the case.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
Davidson did endorse Cleverly though in 2024, so if Kemi is removed after poor May local and devolved elections and replaced by Sir James I suspect many in the ProsperUK group of centrist Tories will be rather more happy in the Tories than they are now.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ruth-davidson-has-backed-james-cleverly-to-be-the-next-conservative-leader_uk_66b87027e4b07f6751732ebe
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
Indeed that is how science or knowledge in general can often progress. Develop something new, not currently of interest, and people can become interested in it.
That being said when reading Holland's Dominion I did feel he was overegging the point a bit much all the same, it was a bit weakly argued in places, and even accepting the foundations doesn't require the kind of overt push that some who raise the point would prefer.
But Goodwin's comments don't sound like good dissertation supervision to me. As with Nigel himself, I'm not sure he has a great record of working with people, which is partly why he's ended up where he has.
The extreme right (eg Yaxley-Lennon and fellow travellers) aresomething different, who want a religious skin for their polityics, and find the fear and hate driven ideas of medieval Roman Catholic Crusaders transplanted to today to be the most convenient for them.
To adore, or scorn an image, or protest,
May all be bad; doubt wisely; in strange way
To stand inquiring right, is not to stray;
To sleep, or run wrong, is. On a huge hill,
Cragged and steep, Truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must and about must go,
And what the hill's suddenness resists, win so.
Yet strive so that before age, death's twilight,
Thy soul rest, for none can work in that night.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44125/satire-iii
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
I'm viewing it from the outside of course (though I have voted Tory before), but Rees-Mogg seems to be coming at it from the point of view that Reform are on the same side as the Tories really, and that seems at odds with how Reform themselves view things, so why assist them?
If you are going down, go down fighting.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.