19-Nov-2021 : CON 36 / LAB 34 / GREEN 10 / LIBDEM 7

[eor]

Nov 23, 2021 22:16:00 GMT oldnat said:

EOR

While I have, thankfully, forgotten most of your snide remark about Scotland, I do remember the bit about it being "under God".

Surely that is a more accurate description of England, with its Established Church and CoE bishops in HoL to legislate, not only for England, but also to control us unruly heathens?

In other words, if you are going to make ludicrous comments, kindly ensure that they have a vague relationship with reality.

In which case I fear you misunderstood me. The remark was not even about Scotland, it was about those who at times seem to launch reflexively into musing on the intellectual failings of posters who don't completely conform to their own preferred terminology, even when the deviation makes no hindrance to their meaning being clearly understood.

As to why I chose to blend that with a reference to right-wing US patriotism I genuinely have no idea :-) So on that part yes I will try to more tightly align my observations with reality, or at least with an alternative that actually makes some sense.

[Danny]

Nov 23, 2021 20:51:49 GMT davwel said:

 "we have planted 44 million trees in just two years".

Maybe a more useful figure if accompanied by the number succumbing to disease or predators, or probably mostly just cut down.

[Danny]

Nov 23, 2021 23:15:35 GMT jib said:

I think Johnson has burnt so many bridges within his own party, this doesn't come as suprise.

Johnson, like May, was someone who in ordinary circumstances would never have become PM. He got the job because he wrote his list of personal advantages and decided he would be better off supporting leave. It worked out, he got to be PM.  Quite a price for the nation, but hey, what does that matter? (though he might have reasoned if it happened, he might as well get the benefit as someone else. But it was clear he expected to lose - he looked horrified when filmed after being told they had won)

Once the wind blows against brexit he is no longer useful and can take the blame for all about it which is going wrong. His best card then might be he opposed lockdown and is on the right side of that one, and will eventually be shown to have been so. Lockdown cost a fortune but didnt save anyone. Summer 2020 someone wrote a study analyzing costs and comparing them to ordinary NHS spending demonstrating it was not a cost effective way to save lives...even if you believe it actually did. The evidence last year was that areas which had infections without lockdown did just as well as areas which did have lockdown.

[eor]

Nov 23, 2021 8:24:23 GMT somerjohn said:

Nov 23, 2021 0:52:51 GMT eor said:

In those 52 seats, 1.41m people voted for the various parties listed above. Of those, 1.08m already voted for the leading LoC party in that seat so can do nothing more to further the cause, leaving just the 33,000 or so people voting for other parties that you can try to convince. Roughly 1.25% of those voting in what turned out to be the most marginal Tory held/won seats last time, or very roughly 0.2% of the people declaring for those parties in an opinion poll. 
    

eor I'm responding mainly to try out the quote facility. But also to point out that 1.41m minus 1.08m is 330,000 not your 33,000. Which might have an impact on the strength of your point.

It certainly has an impact on the size of the numbers, yes :-)

The mildly frustrating thing is that the answer actually felt wrong, so I checked the calculation a couple of times before posting...but still failed to notice I was working in 10ks not 1ks in that initial step. Thank you for the correction. 

So it would be 2% from the 56% who could do something about the situation. And the point remains that in most of the seats affected, we're talking about small numbers of people who are choosing to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, rather than large numbers partaking in a genuine contest between LoC parties that inadvertently allows the Tory to come through the middle. So the seats where more efficient tactical voting could make a realistic difference seem to be in maybe high single-figures. 

[oldnat]

EOR

"the intellectual failings of posters who don't completely conform to their own preferred terminology"

And you totally misunderstand me.
 
Accurate terminology aids clarity of thought. The choice of words that people make may indicate confused thinking, or may indicate a preferred mode of thought. I have no idea what was meant by "the nation of UK", but it was a specific (and unusual) piece of terminology.

I prefer accuracy and clarity. You may prefer confused ideas, perhaps especially on matters of which you know little, or care less.

[Danny]

Nov 23, 2021 21:28:36 GMT js said:

No, it isnt. The criticism of the Uk in recent decades has been brilliant research but no follow through to capitalise on that. So we rectify this by not bothering with the research?

Well ok, more likely the Uk is now seen as a more problematic place to be doing research. There was mention today that following gvernment cancellation of vaccines order, a new factory for same will no longer be built in the UK. EU medicines regulator gone, and the rationale therefore to be in the Uk gone too. Pharmaceuticals industry under threat as well as vehicles. I guess ultimately that means the team which brought you the AZ vaccine.  Had brexit happened ten years before covid, would the UKs ability to get a vaccine program going have been much impaired?

[oldnat]

EOR

"we're talking about small numbers of people who are choosing to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, rather than large numbers partaking in a genuine contest between LoC parties that inadvertently allows the Tory to come through the middle."

That configuration, of course, only applies in England where the Tories are the dominant party.

The same pattern applies in polities where the Tories are just one of the opposition parties.

In Scotland, in most constituencies, FPTP is about small numbers of people who are choosing to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, rather than large numbers partaking in a genuine contest between Unionist parties that inadvertently allows the SNP to come through the middle.

In much of Wales FPTP is about small numbers of people who are choosing to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, rather than large numbers partaking in a genuine contest between a range of parties that inadvertently allows Llafur to come through the middle.

In NI, a similar scenario exists where in different communities, DUP or SF can come through the middle.

It's a consequence of FPTP, not something unique to LoC v Tories - as the effect of UKIP demonstrated previously in England.

[oldnat]

While UK politics is locked into party antagonisms that reduce the chances of consensus on plans for the future, there are alternative approaches that could be explored.

Citizen's Assemblies have been trialled in a number of polities. As a means of concentrating politicians minds on the issues that matter to people, as opposed to the successful factions gaining authority within political parties, they have much to recommend them.

One such was in Scotland, and this is the link to ScotGov's response to it.

www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/progress-report/2021/11/citizens-assembly-scotland-scottish-government-response-doing-politics-differently/documents/scottish-government-response-doing-politics-differently/scottish-government-response-doing-politics-differently/govscot%3Adocument/scottish-government-response-doing-politics-differently.pdf?forceDownload=true

It is, naturally, self-serving! The SNP is trying to show that their approach chimes with the mood of the electorate. Were other parties to do the same, then it might enable discussion on which of different approaches to solving problems might be the most beneficial, and even allow agreement.

PR, of course, allows voters to give preference to parties, whose approach seems best to them - so that, in the governing coalition, the views of the voters carry more import than the internal factional battles within the main parties - the winning faction hoping to maintain the support of tribal voters.

[eor]

Nov 24, 2021 0:49:46 GMT oldnat said:

EOR

"we're talking about small numbers of people who are choosing to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, rather than large numbers partaking in a genuine contest between LoC parties that inadvertently allows the Tory to come through the middle."

That configuration, of course, only applies in England where the Tories are the dominant party.

Actually no, what I meant applies everywhere. But reading it back in your interpretation I can see a potential ambiguity in what I wrote. 

My point was that there are relatively very few seats where a genuine contest to win takes place between LoC parties with the result that the Tories win the seat when they otherwise might not - that applies to the data in Scotland and Wales as in England, and was specifically related to the original suggestion that a significant majority for LoC parties in GB opinion polls could/should be marshalled into a much more efficient anti-Tory outcome in a UK GE. And I did note in my first comment on this that the relatively high number of such seats that are in Wales and Scotland would further challenge simplistic logic about voter priorities. 

[oldnat]

EOR

"My point was that there are relatively very few seats where a genuine contest to win takes place between LoC parties with the result that the Tories win the seat when they otherwise might not - that applies to the data in Scotland and Wales as in England"

Nope. That's not how FPTP elections in Scotland or NI work - whether for Westminster or Holyrood. The central fault line is not between your "LoC" parties and the Tories. It's the constitutional issues. While not as strong in Wales, that is increasingly becoming a factor.

However, far be it from me to stop you trying to persuade ex-SLab voters to vote for a LoC party like the SNP or SGP, instead of the Tories as many of them currently do, for ex SCon/SLD voters from voting SLab in Edinburgh South which produces SLab's only (rather RoC) MP.

Assuming that the fault line in your polity is common to others is a mistake.

[Danny]

I noticed R4 this morning picks up on the spat between the PM and the treasury in terms at least of the rhetoric about expenditure. Attempts to blame Johnson for over promising and thereby turning good news stories into bad news stories. Which begs the question whether he did over promise, or rather the treasury was incapable of delivering what previously it had said it could, as the economy continues to worsen.

And even before today got going farming today had another bad news story. It reported on a fungicide poisonous to bees, and work which found it wasnt the officially active ingredient which was harming the bees, but an adjuvant. The importance of this is that the minor additives do not get the same level of testing. Interestingly a manufacturer invited to comment denied that any part of the fungicide was not rigorously tested, and claimed the lab test used was unrealistic compared to field tests. The lab responded they were using the exact same test as is defined in law for active ingredients, and only after a concern is identified do matters proceed to field tests. Best you could say the manufacturer seemed disinterested in the central findng their product harmed bees. Ironical since the finding really implied a bee safe formulation was possible, just they werent making it. Plainly a failure of regulation.

Something similar happened on newsnight last night, concerning the latest health bill. It seems there is concern it allows private company representatives to sit on the boards of health service trusts (if thats the right name, might not be they talked about areas). What was interesting was a confrontation between a minister who said this problem had been resolved in September when the bill was reworded, and the complainant newsnight had found who said the problem remained in the bill being debated right now and called the minister very firmly a liar for denying it. The interviewer appealed to a labour party chap present to resolve the conflict by taking a side, which he declined to do and waffled instead.

I dont think that covered either party rep in glory. Lab didnt have an opinion while con either couldnt explain in enough detail to be
convincing, or was simply wrong.

And then another news item that the 'windrush' people the government sought to deport from the UK because it had thrown away their paperwork so they couldnt now prove a right to be here....still havn't received compensation 4 years later. While merrily failing to deport new arrvals from France...because we can no longer do so not any more being EU members.

And MPs have been banned from taking their babies into the commons with effect from September.

Oh...and a plan to send NHS patients around the country to receive treatment. Which could simply be seen as part of the ongoing drive to centralise delivery of NHS care, which has been going on for years, and currently sees Hastings reidents driving to Eastbourne, while Eastbourne residents drive to Hastings for the same treatment from the same doctors. Or possibly, get free lifts from volunteer drivers.

[Danny]

R4 now discussing t cells, as featured yesterday in debate over whether AZ or pfizer vaccine might be better. It started out as another interesting debate where communication fails and the interviewee doesnt answer. Happens a lot these days when it never did before. Extraordinary for the flagship state broadcaster.

However they got him back, and he explained there are two sorts of T cell, helper t cells and killer t cells. Unfortunately after having specifically made this distinction to inform the debate....he then went on to not differentiate any vaccine in terms of whether it was better or worse at creating either one or indeed explain further what this difference is and why it is important. (answer: killer cells kill infected cells and therefore end ongoing infections. Helper cells organise the response. You cannot get rid of an infection without sufficient killer cells, so the two are rather concerned with opposite ends of an infection, getting the response going and final mopping up. If you have high helper cells you get a fast response, but if you have high killer cells then you mght never get infected. Does that  sound relevant in our current epidemic?)

Just as I thought there might be a useful contribution to the debate.. the item was signed off without following up on the point it claimed to be all about.

The only point it apparently made by the end was to claim pfizer is just as good as AZ, whereas yesterday's story argued for the reverse. Which maybe upset the government, because we are now exclusively using pfizer. So this didn't inform or explain, but an information piece was turned into a propaganda piece to encourage people to be vaccinated and vaildate government policy.

This is likely the sort of thing Andrew Marr was referring to.

[steamdrivenandy]

Being nearly 74 years old, running on just one, slightly dodgy kidney, with a bit of a heart problem, suffering neuropathy and with MGUS hovering in the background, I really don't wish to contract Covid.

It strikes me that if you follow Danny's suggestion that governmental preventative action is wasted effort, then so was the expense of removing my cancerous kidney eight years ago and the cost of the SHINE clinic I attended in the summer, plus the diagnosis and monitoring by urology, haematology, neurology etc. Surely arguing to just let things proceed as they would naturally occur is arguing that we may as well not intervene in any medical issue?

[barbara]

Nov 23, 2021 22:50:54 GMT oldnat said:

Nov 23, 2021 22:34:22 GMT js said:

History has no "direction" (Sorry Barbara and others). That belief in historical inevitability should have died with Whig and Marxist historians.

Hi Oldnat, 

I agree that each generation largely seems to need to learn its own lessons rather than learning from previous mistakes..... but not entirely. It seems to be 3 steps forward and 2 steps back so we do move forever forwards but slowly. This is much more evident in social attitudes rather than governance and power. We (well most of us) no longer believe homosexuality is a sin, disease is a punishment, kings are divine, women are chattels etc. And the generations after us will have moved forward on for instance, how we treat the planet and all living things so it's likely eating animals will reduce or be replaced with artificially grown lab meat.

Where power, money and sex are concerned though, there will always be a minority (usually men) who will use whatever means they can, including violence, to grab and hold onto these things so in that respect we've barely moved on at all. 

[steve]

Sda
It makes entirely common sense for you to take extra precautions given the additional risks you have mentioned.As it would for any other infectious disease,it's not reasonable however to expect everyone else to permanently restrict their activities beyond basic precautions such as,good personal hygiene and not visiting elderly relatives if you test positive. .
It's a fact confirmed only yesterday by people far more expert than me that those seriously ill in hospital with covid are almost entirely the unvaccinated those in itu testing positive for covid who have been vaccinated are in most instances there because or partially because of their other conditions.
For the rest the likely impact according to the experts is nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

While I have every sympathy for those who have been vaccinated and still suffer significant illness my sympathy for those hospitalised because they have actively declined vaccination is pretty much zero.
We have to move on and realise that we've past the general pandemic stage of this epidemic.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Good morning all from another cold day in the PSRL

@ oldnat

History has no "direction" (Sorry Barbara and others). That belief in historical inevitability should have died with Whig and Marxist historians

From personal experience there are still a fair few Whiggish and Marxist historians hanging around, the latter having a bit of a revival as an interpretative model over the past two decades. I personally have always tended towards the history is a series of accidents etc side of the fence. There are many cases where an arguably more 'advanced' society/polity has been overrun by one not so advanced but has a military advantage; such as the Saxons by the Normans. And how possible can the gradual disappearance of the use of the apostrophe be seen as progress???

barabara

Personally, I don't think you can underestimate the role religion continue to plays in so many people's thinking and values. That is not to say religion or religions are inherently reactionary by nature per see, but in a number of cases their overall mindset is not necessarily consistent with a more secular view of social/political progress. I remember rocking up to Uni/College with my atheist beliefs and being genuinely taken aback that intelligent people still believed in the existence of god. Religious groups and organisations are well organised, influential, motivated, and probably better based in the long term to influence the direction of societies than secularist progressives such as myself.

Organised Labour used to be tool of progressives to drive change, the deal being in power parties of the left would being material change to workers lives etc while progressive could get their legislation past etc. That alliance is diminished for a number of reasons. I strongly believe that it is complacent, wishful thinking, just to have faith that 'progress' will occur, it has to be fought for.

@ Laszlo

Whilst I agree there is evidence for over-all non-lineal progression in technology science (although the experience of Western Europe in dark ages does show that societies can lose 'knowledge' for long periods), I struggle more to see it in the social/political sphere.

[Deleted]

Nov 23, 2021 21:17:03 GMT js said:

I don’t disagree, I interpreted, perhaps wrongly which I apologise for in advance, that you were equating FPTP with strong governments and PR with weak multi party coalitions. I disagree with that. Both systems can lead to strong and weak governments and I don’t find a correlation in either.

It sounds like we agree that there are good and bad examples of any electoral system (see the small selection of examples I gave) and hence why I'm not convinced one system is 'better' than the other, certainly not 'inherently' (as in 'by design') better. IMO of course. 

Without wishing to make an example then given it's still early days for UKPR2 then might I make a few general suggestions, given the kind of issues we used to see back in the UKPR

1/ If a point being made by someone is unclear then please ask for clarification rather than making an assumption of the point being made that risks a misrepresentation. You can send a personal message or reply on main forum.
2/ Everyone is entitled to an opinion (freedom of speech)
a/ If an opinion is based on facts, examples and other source info then by all means contest the info by providing counter facts, examples and other source info. 
b/ There is no need to agree or conclude an argument, agreeing to disagree or simply respecting someone else is entitled to an opinion without response will save a lot of pointless discussion.
c/ If you have to use the 'gotcha' approach (as some do) then at least provide the 'gotcha' evidence, see a/, and respect that time moves on, circumstances change, etc.

Then there are also a few new features on UKPR2 that IMO folks could or should make use of:

3/ The 'Issue Specific' tab (eg for those wishing to discuss the finer details of electoral systems then 'get a room' and get into the fine detail of that with others who share that interest). Good to see some folks using the 'Covid' thread so that specific discussion doesn't clutter up the main thread. 
4/ The 'block' feature can help with implementation of the rules in 'General rules and how to post - please read' (notably the final paragraph which is why I use the 'block' feature)
ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/5/general-rules-post-read

Under 'profile' tab, click 'edit profile' and then 'privacy'. At the bottom enter whoever you want to avoid a pointless discussion with in 'Member Block List'. I've adopted a high level of 'flame proof' clothing given I don't trust myself to not get drawn into pointless old discussions. I hope others are blocking my comments or 'nudge' me (perhaps via a personal message) if I start or get drawn into a pointless discussion with a 'flamer' or someone posting 'fact free', unsourced opinion or just 'copying+pasting' from the twitterverse/biased media. Each to their own of course (and see #2, whilst of course everyone is entitled to an opinion then everyone is also entitled to not engage in a discussion for whatever reason they choose). 

All IMO of course but I hope UKPR2 can be 'better' than UKPR and we collectively learn from some of the 'bad' stuff that spoiled UKPR (for which I accept I played a role in engaging in). Each individual is obviously free to input and use UKPR2 for whatever purpose they wish to but out of respect for MARK who set the site up and each other then I hope we can do 'better' on v2 (I'll try to reread the 'rules' periodically to remind myself!)

[steamdrivenandy]

Nov 24, 2021 8:51:38 GMT steve said:

Sda
It makes entirely common sense for you to take extra precautions given the additional risks you have mentioned.As it would for any other infectious disease,it's not reasonable however to expect everyone else to permanently restrict their activities beyond basic precautions such as,good personal hygiene and not visiting elderly relatives if you test positive. .
It's a fact confirmed only yesterday by people far more expert than me that those seriously ill in hospital with covid are almost entirely the unvaccinated those in itu testing positive for covid who have been vaccinated are in most instances there because or partially because of their other conditions.
For the rest the likely impact according to the experts is nothing more than a minor inconvenience.

While I have every sympathy for those who have been vaccinated and still suffer significant illness my sympathy for those hospitalised because they have actively declined vaccination is pretty much zero.
We have to move on and realise that we've past the general pandemic stage of this epidemic.

What bothers me is that it seems more and more people are catching the illness, due to a lack of caution and the perception that, for them, it will be relatively mild. To someone who knows they are at risk of more serious results it appears a tidal wave of infection is gradually heading their way with little to stop it reaching land. Preaching that it 's over and it doesn't matter anymore seems incredibly callous and self serving. 

[Deleted]

IMO this infographic from R&W polling is quite useful as it breaks down the 'better PM' finding to see 'why' Boris leads v Starmer. It would great if someone could show each category as a tracker to see the changes over time. Also as per COLIN's point t'other day then if anyone has a longer-term tracker for issues such as 'build a strong economy' then could they post the info (eg if part of CON's 'brand' is being better at running the economy then is this CON HMG above/below that 'normal'(average) lead? I don't know, hence asking)

/photo/1

[steamdrivenandy]

Aren't we in danger of confusing the result of an electoral system, with whether it's a good system per se?

Yes, either FPTP and PR can produce both weak or strong forms of government and all points in between. However it's surely fair to say that a PR version is more representative of the people who have voted and therefore more democratic than FPTP?

[Deleted]

Just in case: the three parties agreed in Germany, so Scholz will succeed Merkel.

[wb61]

@ SDA

I think you may be at least one step ahead of the starting point for discussion on democratic systems. Surely the first decision would be deciding participatory, representative or ballot led (or if there is another system of which I am unaware)?

[alec]

Nice little reminder of what Lord Frost actually thinks - twitter.com/The_ChrisShaw

He knew that leaving the SM was hugely expensive, "4,5,6% of GDP...around £1,500 per person" etc etc. The quote from Alistair Campbell fts well:

"There is a special place in hell reserved for this guy. Johnson is all about his own ambition. Frost actively knows and understands the damage he is doing. Utterly odious."

Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph is writing opinions about how Johnson has lost hiw authority and this could mark a swift and brutal end.

What went wrong?

[steve]

SDA
It's not my opinion it's the opinion of experts based on facts there's nothing callous about it.
Also it's a tad disingenuous to mention other medical treatments as treatments necessary for an individual aren't normally imposed on everyone else as well.
Those who leave hospital when imuno compromised are advised to take care no one until covid has suggested that the entire population needs to modify its behaviour to protect them. That's not the health services being callous It's just reality.
It's not good practice to continue to restrict the activities of the vast majority whose actions pose no risk to them or the vast majority of their regular contacts because someone they are never likely to have contact with could potentially be at risk from catching something they almost certainly don't have.

Of course reasonable precautions should be taken, of course vaccination should be taken up and of course where possible and practical efforts should be made to avoid catching and transferring the virus.
But those at particular risk from any infectious disease because of a condition they know they have also have to accept the increased risk of mitigate it by changes in their own behaviour.

Accepting that the draconian and highly destructive impact of lock down and similar measures on the mental and physical health and emotional and educational development of millions isn't being callous its the reverse.
The damage of health care preventative treatment caused by health care restrictions during the pandemic is only just beginning to be obvious.
Tens of thousands of people across the age spectrum will die because in an effort to protect those most vulnerable from covid their condition went untreated.

[barbara]

Nov 24, 2021 9:26:23 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

barabara

Personally, I don't think you can underestimate the role religion continue to plays in so many people's thinking and values. That is not to say religion or religions are inherently reactionary by nature per see, but in a number of cases their overall mindset is not necessarily consistent with a more secular view of social/political progress.

lululemon

Couldn't agree more with this.  I have no problem with personal faith (although I don't have any myself) but ORGANISED religion is almost entirely a creation made by men hungry for power, money and sexual gratification. (and again nearly always men). That's why such organised religions are biased towards maintaining the status quo: men in charge (priests, mullahs etc.), women relegated, children propagandised, social mores unchanged and unchanging and anything and anyone who wants progress (gay people, sexually independent women, more relaxed social mores etc. ) are demonised and ostracised.

[steve]

Having recently had covid for the second possibly third time I complied with the quarantine restrictions as did my daughter, neither of us were ill at all and I suspect the compliance was largely pointless particularly in my case as the only person I am likely to meet when I have an infectious illness with greater than normal risk is me!
I would of course stay away from those others at increased risk in the same way as I would if I had a positive test for any other potentially serious infection.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that attitude.

[alec]

Good account by George Monbiot of the end point of concerted, long term efforts to deregulate and strip state authorities of the resources needed to police compliance, this time looking at the shocking case of waste disposal - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/24/waste-dumping-uk-environment

"All these failures are inevitable outcomes of 40 years of “cutting red tape”, of slashing the budgets of regulatory agencies, of outsourcing and self-reporting. We were promised freedom. But the people our governments have set free are criminals. Yet another filthy business is cleaning up."

[steamdrivenandy]

Nov 24, 2021 11:11:52 GMT steve said:

Having recently had covid for the second possibly third time I complied with the quarantine restrictions as did my daughter, neither of us were ill at all and I suspect the compliance was largely pointless particularly in my case as the only person I am likely to meet when I have an infectious illness with greater than normal risk is me!
I would of course stay away from those others at increased risk in the same way as I would if I had a positive test for any other potentially serious infection.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong with that attitude.

That attitude may be right for you, but is it right for others who don't, or won't exercise the caution and common sense you exhibit. From your career experience you must surely recognise that there are a high proportion of careless/reckless individuals about?   

[steamdrivenandy]

Nov 24, 2021 11:05:07 GMT barbara said:

Nov 24, 2021 9:26:23 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

barabara

Personally, I don't think you can underestimate the role religion continue to plays in so many people's thinking and values. That is not to say religion or religions are inherently reactionary by nature per see, but in a number of cases their overall mindset is not necessarily consistent with a more secular view of social/political progress.

lululemon

Couldn't agree more with this.  I have no problem with personal faith (although I don't have any myself) but ORGANISED religion is almost entirely a creation made by men hungry for power, money and sexual gratification. (and again nearly always men). That's why such organised religions are biased towards maintaining the status quo: men in charge (priests, mullahs etc.), women relegated, children propagandised, social mores unchanged and unchanging and anything and anyone who wants progress (gay people, sexually independent women, more relaxed social mores etc. ) are demonised and ostracised.

If you've not read it already, Pratchett's 'Small Gods' provides a great commentary on religions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Gods

[Deleted]

Nov 24, 2021 10:42:17 GMT @laszlo said:

Just in case: the three parties agreed in Germany, so Scholz will succeed Merkel.

Interesting bedfellows-FDP and Greens !

Reportedly :-
FDP get Finance Ministry.
Greens get Foreign Ministry and "Economy".

Compromises by the bucketload ahead