Jump to content

UK Politics - Now is the Spring of our Discontent


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

2022 saw more strikes that any year since the end of the 80s, 2023 will overtake that soon. How long before a General Strike is called?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-62134314

The union for academic staff at universities, UCU, is pausing its action for now. Apparently some sort of progress has been made. The other union, UNISON, has suspended its strikes. But those are probably the only examples I've heard of recently in which industrial action has receded rather than looming larger. 

My aunt (a nurse, approaching retirement) was on annual leave on their strike day before Christmas, but went to the picket line to show support. In their annual catch-up phone call, one of her very very elderly (think nineties) female relatives gave her hell for ten minutes about the abominable, immoral behaviour of nurses for daring to want better pay and working conditions, before concluding, "Well, Merry Christmas and love to you and all the family!" 

eta: I just tried to spell abominable in six different ways, including abdominal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the thing about Kate Forbes is, she's a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Very conservative church, socially. They don't do work on Sundays and famously, for decades, kept shops, restaurants and even public transport from operating on Sundays in areas where they had influence. In fact they deplore the word 'Sunday' as being of pagan origin and only refer to it as the Sabbath. They don't approve of abortion, gay marriage, or other socially progressive policies (including liberalising gender recognition, of course). Forbes herself has made public anti-abortion statements and suggested she would not have voted for gay marriage.

So her critics are concerned she's way too far to the right. Her defenders are taking the line of 'if you can have a Hindu for PM why can't you have a Free Church member for FM?' Which is fair enough, but also not the actual issue. Nobody's saying you can't have a Free Church member for FM. Forbes herself has said that she sometimes disagrees with her church and follows her own conscience. So the issue is, is it legitimate to ask if she will do this as FM? Would any other candidate with her record face the same scrutiny?

It's certainly unusual to see an election where the religion of the Christian candidate is more of an issue than the Muslim candidate. But there we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

So the thing about Kate Forbes is, she's a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Very conservative church, socially. They don't do work on Sundays and famously, for decades, kept shops, restaurants and even public transport from operating on Sundays in areas where they had influence. In fact they deplore the word 'Sunday' as being of pagan origin and only refer to it as the Sabbath. They don't approve of abortion, gay marriage, or other socially progressive policies (including liberalising gender recognition, of course). Forbes herself has made public anti-abortion statements and suggested she would not have voted for gay marriage.

Wait.

Our days are named after...

The moon
Tyr (Tuetonic god)
Wodan (Tuetonic god)
Thor (Tuetonic god)
Freya (Tuetonic goddess)
Saturn (Roman god)
And, the sun - but the sun is the one they've got a problem with?

Just wait until they hear about Christmas and Easter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Wait.

Our days are named after...

The moon
Tyr (Tuetonic god)
Wodan (Tuetonic god)
Thor (Tuetonic god)
Freya (Tuetonic goddess)
Saturn (Roman god)
And, the sun - but the sun is the one they've got a problem with?

Those other days aren't the Lord's day, though.

And realistically, I don't imagine if you ask Kate Forbes what she's up to this Sunday she responds by saying 'don't you mean the Sabbath, blasphemer!'

I note that Forbes has now given an interview to C4 News saying she won't 'row back on any rights that already exist', though in doing so she's seriously mischaracterised the terms of discussion, trying to present the idea that 'marriage is between a man and a woman' as being the settled view of all three major world religions, Christians in particular, rather than one on which there are very different views among religious people.

Notably, she and Regan have said they wouldn't challenge the UK government's blocking of the bill passed by the Scottish Parliament. Whatever one thinks of the bill, that's sure to raise a few eyebrows in the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

 

I'd laugh except the idea of her becoming SNP leader and First Minister dries up the laughter a bit. She's not going to win, is she? My guess is that Hamza Yousaf will have an easy victory with Forbes and Regan as his opponents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mormont said:

So the thing about Kate Forbes is, she's a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Very conservative church, socially. They don't do work on Sundays and famously, for decades, kept shops, restaurants and even public transport from operating on Sundays in areas where they had influence. In fact they deplore the word 'Sunday' as being of pagan origin and only refer to it as the Sabbath. They don't approve of abortion, gay marriage, or other socially progressive policies (including liberalising gender recognition, of course). Forbes herself has made public anti-abortion statements and suggested she would not have voted for gay marriage.

So her critics are concerned she's way too far to the right. Her defenders are taking the line of 'if you can have a Hindu for PM why can't you have a Free Church member for FM?' Which is fair enough, but also not the actual issue. Nobody's saying you can't have a Free Church member for FM. Forbes herself has said that she sometimes disagrees with her church and follows her own conscience. So the issue is, is it legitimate to ask if she will do this as FM? Would any other candidate with her record face the same scrutiny?

It's certainly unusual to see an election where the religion of the Christian candidate is more of an issue than the Muslim candidate. But there we are.

We've just had that kind of dilemma in Australia with our Prime Minister who was far more fundamentalist Christian than anything we've had before (well, at least last few decades). The key is what their policies are, not what religion they are. As you say, if she will break with FM sometimes, then its not the FM beliefs and policies that matter but Kate Forbes' ones. However, it does sound like the view on gay marriage is her position, so she can get stuffed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, dog-days said:

I'd laugh except the idea of her becoming SNP leader and First Minister dries up the laughter a bit. She's not going to win, is she? My guess is that Hamza Yousaf will have an easy victory with Forbes and Regan as his opponents. 

I’d hoped the nutters had all fucked off to Salmond’s Alba party but evidently not.

My fear is SNP division will benefit him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of her backers are rowing for shore, was her position of this not a matter of public record, wouldn't you look into the person you are looking to back before publicly supporting them? 

So basically they were fine with her position, until the press got hold of it and they had to distance themselves, cowards and idiots (i can never decide which of those 2 things are worse).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Cheerio, you backward heid the baw. Fucking nutter.

 

Trussian. 

its funny how far apart the UK and US are on religion in politics, over there you can't get elected unless you lie about beleiving in the big shiny man in the sky. 

Over here, even right wing zealots are a bit 'i don't mind you being a racist/sexist/homophobic, but i'd rather you weren't a fucking cretin'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

its funny how far apart the UK and US are on religion in politics, over there you can't get elected unless you lie about beleiving in the big shiny man in the sky. 

Over here, even right wing zealots are a bit 'i don't mind you being a racist/sexist/homophobic, but i'd rather you weren't a fucking cretin'. 

You say that, but we are one of only two nations on Earth who have unelected religious leaders making laws.

The other one?

Iran.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

You say that, but we are one of only two nations on Earth who have unelected religious leaders making laws.

The other one?

Iran.

 

 

This is true, but a bit of a misnomer.  Britain is a multi-faith community, and if you are going to have an appointed legislature, the important thing is that all faiths and none have equal representation. 

Obviously the primacy of the House of Lords, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells vetoing legislation made by elected representatives is indefensible, but that is also now more than a hundred years gone.   

The problem with Kate Forbes doesn't seem to be her religious views, it's that she won't make a Kennedyesque statement that she will follow the national interest instead of trying to convert her (no doubt) deeply and sincerely held religious views into law: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...