ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
What will the King's Speech reveal about the Labour government? | Andrew Marr | The New Statesman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ส.ค. 2024
- What are Labour's fundamental values and beliefs. "This is a surprisingly difficult question to answer about Keir Starmer's government." - Andrew Marr
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
Tomorrow we have the state opening of Parliament. The new government will gather to hear the King's speech, where we are expecting a number of bills on constitutional reform, planning reform and bills to enact Labour's growth plan.
Hannah Barnes is joined by Andrew Marr to discuss what to expect tomorrow and the decline of religion in politics.
Read more:
Will Keir Starmer drop the two-child benefit cap?
www.newstatesm...
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our TH-cam channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on TH-cam: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.su...
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesm...
![[TH]FFWS SEA 2024 Fall - Knockout Stage Day 5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/N2tl9xkQyyU/mqdefault.jpg)
The implication that non-religious people dont have a moral backbone is deeply, deeply offensive, wrong, and stupid. Broadly a good publication and enjoyable videos, but quite a bit of nonsense in this one.
Theology student here, I don't mind saying that the non-religious have a moral backbone - I believe that it is way larger than that. Atheists might have a moral backbone, whilst religious people like myself wanna see the whole skeleton. No offence, though. I would describe religion as the art of perennial questions, beliefs and worldviews. We are not just moral apparatchiks (damn you Immanuel Kant, you dumkopf, if you didn't tear away metaphysics and plaster theological non-realism over us, none of this religion-morality conflation would have happened!). Sorry, just had a meltdown in front of an Enlightenment philosopher...
@@jackbaynes3959 also nonsense.
@@jackbaynes3959religious people naval gazing at religion, using big worlds and terms to try to justify the belief in fairy 🧚♂️ tales. Try doing some Philosophy and Sociology alongside your studies and you may be rounded in your views
I came pretty much to say this. What was Andrew talking about at the end of his segment? That being religious allows a claim on morality?
Let's look across the pond and see how many of them like to wrap themselves in the cloth of religion. then they can't give a straight answer when asked about trump and the stormy Daniel case, the Caroll case, or the access Hollywood tape.
Heck I worked in a financial company many were religious, but when it came to selling high interest loans to poor people it was : "dog eat dog world"
Sorry, but was that really the implication? And who was implying it? Like Keir Starmer, I am a very determined atheist, but I cannot say that I was deeply, deeply offended by Andrew Marr's comments, nor did I feel I was being accused of lacking a moral backbone.
"...it's a perfectly rationale thing to have faith..." No it's not. "Faith" is belief in the absence of proof which is the opposite of logical. It would be more accurate to say there are a multiplicity of faiths in British society, each deserving of respect and acceptance.
Montesquieu, in 1721, said: “History is full of religious wars; but, we must take care to observe, it was not the multiplicity of religions that produced these wars, it was the intolerating spirit which animated that one which thought she had the power of governing.”
I get what she was trying to say - that religious faith does not preclude rational thought, not is it precluded by rational thought. But the way it was phrased wasn't good, it implied an ignorance of the reality of thousands of years of actual religious faith, which has frequently been at odds with rational thought.
You’ve seen with empirical and incontrovertible truth that Montesquieu wrote that, I’m presuming? Otherwise you’re… errr… having faith in the expertise of others. But that would mean that absence of proof…
I don't think it is a perfectly rational thing to have faith. The entire point in faith is that it is belief without proof. That is perfectly fine in its own way and within certain boundaries, but it is not 'perfectly rational.' Especially if you get into having an actual religion instead of just having faith in some higher power. When you get to telling people that there is some higher power that cares exactly about the wording of the Nicene Creed, or whether you make pictures of Mohammad, that is when you have gone far beyond rationality.
I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of religion having any influence on politics. Policy should be based on people not on a 2000 year old Desert comic.
Absolutely, people use their "religious beliefs" to ignore facts, figures and critical observations of the world they live in. Mixing any religion with politics is fundamentally wrong
Religion or faith, whatever you wish, being British means we keep it private and so we should.
Being British should have no such effect on how people practice their faith.
@@martineylespracticing your faith and speaking publicly about it are two different things.
Religion is not something private. It concerns EVERYTHING, and all the big questions. Life, death, politics, prayer, support, attitude, history, world transformation etc...
@@cheytigrey No, speaking about your faith is a vital part of practicing it. People need to know about Jesus if they are to find their way to heaven. The most hateful thing you can do is refuse to tell them.
I think it would be awful if you weren't able to criticize a religious group due to claims of prejudice of an entire peoples...
I really like the talk about christian-socialism.
Most of the time when you hear politicians speak about religion, especially christianity, they use it as a shield;"I'm against abortion because i'm a christian," which isn't something that automatically follows. There's a priest in the bible that performs an abortion for instance. Yet those politicians wield that book as a shield, because if you dare to criticise their stance you're "attacking their religion."
Christian-socialism reminds people that christians don't have to be right wing because of their religion, they choose those horrid positions all on their own. They could choose to feed the hungry, clothe the naked & house the refugee.
@@LeafHuntress Not in the UK - if a politician said he was or wasn't supporting something because of his religion, we'd be appalled.
@@mjwilliamsb2676 Technically Northern Ireland is in the UK so there are the DUP & TUV who clearly haven't got _that_ memo, but even if you're only speaking about the main parties; Reese-Mogg has done this several times.
So happy that the haunted pencil has been voted out.
@@LeafHuntress Me too (re Rees Smug) and you're right, I wasn't thinking of Ireland, specially Northern Ireland, when I made my last comment. I should maybe have said England, not the UK
Socialist regimes have all been atheist. So “christian-socialism” is a bit of a contradiction isn’t it.
In my opinion, religion has no place in politics. Just one if the many reasons I'm happy that I voted Labour. Better than all of the alternatives to corruption and single issue parties.
I am a black person and not into god. But unlike a lot of people in this country respect people with their own views about what is their own version of god and just leave it at that.
Yet Labour relies on the Muslim vote. Angela Raynor was begging for Muslims to vote for her and she would do everything she could for Palestine. Labour Party is full of antisemitism.
He was talking about ethics not 'faith' as you see it. Do unto others...is a pretty good ethic. I prefer it to the ethics of the market. It is not unique to Christianity but it is something I am happy to endorse...
Why would you vote labour 😢
“Belief should have no place in politics” lunacy
I'm a Brit living in Austria. My mate lives in Clacton and voted for Reform. It's now the 20.7 and having seen The Labour Party and their actions. He said he regrets his voting......
In my experience non-religious people are often more morally centered than those from a religious background, it depends greatly on the individual.
A deeply problematic assertion that having a faith is completely rational thing and the other comments here reflect this. Faith has no place in politics beyond the principle that they should all be equal and you should have the freedom to practice it. The exception being that you can congregate together and practice or do so privately, but it should not intrude on other peoples daily lives.
Ever feel like people like this live on a different planet to the rest of us?
That was 80% twaddle about religion. The working class now rule the cabinet and they like common sense and fairness neither of which have anything to do with religion.
@@johnhirst4673 Only nine out of the 412 Labour MPs are working class.
@@stephfoxwell4620Really depends how you define working class.
@@martineyles C2, D, and E. Obviously.
@@stephfoxwell4620 I think you meant C2, not C1. Still, I'm not sure these are good categories, and I'm not sure how easy it is to even determine which of the categories you fit into.
@@martineyles People in A ,B and C1 are not working class.
"perfectly rational thing to have faith" - NO! faith is fundamentally irrational!!!
@dogglebird4430prove it
@dogglebird4430 the very definition of delusion.
@dogglebird4430 Faith without evidence is merely naivety and gullibility. Did I tell you I have a bridge to sell you?
I remember being told on a church weekend away that the ancient Greek for "I have faith" (πιστευω) translated as "I am convinced!" A statement used in Greek court of law. This is significant for Christians because Koine Greek would have been one of Jesus' languages (and the language of the original New Testament) - so any Christ-ian example of faith is related to πιστεύω or being convinced in Christ.
Faith CAN thus be rational because if it is conviction that something is right, that conviction has a reason/cause behind it.
But to be fair, faith (πίστις as its third declension noun form) is a difficult thing to understand. As a Theology student, I know a student who wrote their dissertation on how to best translate πιστις Χριστου. She argued that neither "faith of Christ" nor "faith in Christ" do that translation justice - which means anything I just said about faith as conviction might not be complete (if her argument is correct, which I hope so).
As the late great Christopher Hitchens said about faith, "... the most over-rated of all the virtues."
The thing is though that a lot of "islamophobia" is just a thin veil for racism towards people from predominantly Muslim countries. I have experienced Islamophobia despite not being Muslim because of my ethnicity
Agree-I think Islamophobia is a posh word for racism.
The difficult part is that many people are critical of Islam because they are racists, but there are plenty of reasonable and sound reasons to be critical of it as well, and islamophobia is used to describe both.
Islamophobia is just anti-Fascism
@@StyledObject you can usually tell if someone's critical of the religion or just racist by if they generalise all muslims or not. most Islamophobes like to pretend secular and cultural Muslims don't exist as it doesn't fit their "incompatible with the West" narrative
I think Andrew Marr is a national treasure!!!
He is :-) and because he is; when he makes a mistake, we let him know. If I love my brother, I want to help him learn the truth :-)
Religion has no place in politics.
Contempt for faith (all faiths not any one in particular) shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.
Faith is illogical, having clergy in the house of lords is abominable. Having religious MPs isn't they're simply a representation of the public.
The contempt especially with the trendy atheists (Dawkins , Chris Hitchens ) is extremely crass. Almost the level of the League of the Godless in the old Stalinist USSR
@@briandelaney9710Rubbish! Believing in sky pilots or fairies is essentially stupid. We humour little kids who have phantom friends but eventually they do grow up. All the religions, and there are so many, seek to be explanations for something beyond our understanding.
Why is Andrew Marr so wise? I wish I had half of his clarity of thought.
Can't believe we had him for years and then got kuensburg
It is not perfectly rational to have faith / belief in a supreme being. It is completely bonkers.
Starmer's plan is to get in there (done well), consolidate power,
be better than the Tories at being Tory;
then;
leave the door open for more radical changes if the public are up for it.
Did I hear the statement that being religious is a rational choice? It is very much not a rational choice so I’m disappointed in NS for the nature of this debate. You are entitled to your view and opinion but religion in politics is plain wrong.
Yeah, she did say being religious is a perfectly rational choice 😂😂😂
Indeed the scope of this conversation is deeply disappointing and disturbing as well tbh….
Politics must not be mixed up with irrational (or rational if you wish) religious beliefs - what the heck
I am an atheist and I'm pleased to hear that Government policy will be shaped largely through the rational application of evidence provided by scientific enquiry. Science is good for understanding the facts ... how things work. However it says little about "why?"
Religions attempt to impart "values and meaning" through narrative and storytelling, a form of cultural education and socialisation. These form the foundation for most of the positive values that shape the best features of modern societies. I would NOT want to give these up simply because have little scientific justification!
Oh horrors ! They aren’t taking a strict trendy atheist line ???
“Belief in politics is plain wrong” this is insane, religion is a system of beliefs
"It's a perfectly rational thing to have faith?" - Sorry what is that statement based on, what is your definition of rational that you think that statement makes sense.
If you were being evidence-based about policy the question of women's rights and trans rights would not be an issue, given the complete lack of evidence that they are in any way exclusive
In what sense?
Circular reasoning isn't evidence based.
The Y chromosome would beg to differ. You can represent any gender you want, and that should be protected, but your sex is definitely coded. If we one day have a gene therapy or massive evolution of CRISPR we would have more of a dilema but for now that is fantasy, as is your comment.
Women’s rights and some application of trans rights clash
Saying that having a belief is rational is incredibly illogical! How can it ever be rational to hold as fact something that must be believed without evidence ?
I could listen to you two all day :)
On the question of faith, the Islamic faith does not hold to the law and values of the UK. This is a truth not a phobia. The danger is that politicians can’t or dare not speak . The Palestine protest in London was not the reflection of every one in the UK. The Poll tax was relevant to lots of UK citizens. The law was rewritten to prevent pol tax demonstrations so, . People went to prison . How then can you expect the British national people to have any faith in politicians? It is time to say that if you live in the UK your faith is a choice obedient to the law of the UK is not a choice it’s a obligation to British way of life. There is nothing racist in the truth. Trying to bring in an Islamic or any other faith into the equation is not acceptable.it’s morally bankrupt. Second point what consenting adults do in their lives is of no concern of others. A persons gender identity is set at birth. To try to change that other than by surgery is up to the individual. That said I have not reason to share someone else’s opinion because I don’t follow their sexual preferences. So to make any law beyond everyone has equal rights to choose their partners if it is legal that’s the law . Everything out side the bed room apparently has to be changed for their convenience. I’m wondering how something so basic causes politicians so mush headache. May be politicians needs to be protected from having to play pass the parcel and get on with doing something ! To have the representative of the UK to leave D Day remembrance. Was a disrespectful disgrace. Political leaders should face consequences in courts and the money making process should mean that the only money they earn is the payment for being an elected official. All of these points are based on being honest . Look up honest in the dictionary.
Only Marr could turn this into a God thing
All religious VALUES have an important place in our society. Fair?
But having 'faith' does not always mean being rational. Sorry.
Hang on, who are you to assert that "it's a perfectly rational thing to have faith"?! It's by definition irrational. And there's nothing intrinsically moral about it. People do unspeakable evil in the name of their "faith". What on earth is she talking about?!
'...it's a perfectly rational thing to have faith...'
Yeah.... No.
Can we have more of these discussions on ideas and the philosophical foundations of political views.
I don't believe i've ever seen this level of scrutiny, judgement and scepticism of any Government a couple of weeks in. Commentators need to keep talking to justify a paycheck, 10% value 90% guff
I feel I should correct Andrew about swearing on the bible means you have a faith and assuming that affirming means you don’t. It’s completely wrong! Many people do not swear on a bible simply because this is an earthly matter and it’s considered taking God’s name in vain. One example is the Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers. We always affirm rather than swear by the bible. So please Andrew, don’t make assumptions not based on facts :-)
Thanks
Secularism keeps the calm.
Davos is our North Star , Zero Emissions is one of our vehicles along with no borders ......something like that
If I were God I'd ban religion.
You have a perfect name to make that comment lol
it’ll reveal that he’s just another Crown Corporation apparatchik
Having been watching The Kings speech and am shocked at how many people dressed like father Christmas we have to fund on a daily basis it is such a waste of our yaxes Labourbis rotten for a start igs horrible!
Scientism; Science can tell us about good morals.
Collectivist subjectivism / secularism doesn't necessarily imply scientism.
Ridiculous dangerous nonsense.
It is not rational to have faith.
The England football team?? I am a keen fan and follower, and I have never thought of them in terms of religion. Roman Catholic players often genuflect as they come onto the pitch, but I have never seen any overt signs of adherence to black evangelical protestant religions, whatever their private faith. Maybe I'd better look harder.
Oh we get more evidence with every speach our king makes, just where his loyal aliegnece is.
I think the king will say most of us were right that labour had no intention in keeping their promises
Religion…groan.😴
Please explain the part about faith that is 'perfectly rational'?
Eh this was just circulated (again!) to users of the New Statesman phone app. Back to the future!
Its perfectly reasonable to believe in fairies - what?
Nope. Give me an atheist any time
Before talk about religion thing better understood what is real minority in British... that migrant have their own country....the words minority already wrong understood...
The fool has said in his heart there is no god
What garbage about religion and importance of religious belief. How can you justify the suggestion that religion is what is responsible for a moral backbone? Shocking nonsense from supposedly educated presenters.
Youth Demand said they will disrupt the opening, look out for that...
Err... it _isn't_ 'a perfectly reasonable thing to have faith', given that faith requires, by definition, belief without, or in the face of, evidence. Unless you have a really novel and bizarre definition for 'reasonable', I guess. It's reasonable _that_ people have faith, given that, for example, they have very, very likely been inculcated in it since they were young in one form or another, but that's a rather important distinction. But actually having faith is a step away from reason and towards something else.
Indeed, as regards morality, I would suggest that any morality which is dictated by the whims of an unknown and unknowable being isn't a particularly reasonable place to look for a moral backbone. It's why the greatest ethicists that are also religious never rely on their faith for their arguments.
Oh dear... faith implies a belief in a lack of evidence or proof, hence it's _irrational!_
@CatholicSatan Faith can be quite a varied concept, which can include rationale but also belief-system. In Koine Greek (which Jesus Christ spoke), πιστεύω (usually "I have faith") could translate to "I an convinced" a statement used in court of law if someone agreed with someone's case. The concept πίστις Χριστου, however, could be either "faith in Christ" or "faith of Christ," but a fellow student in their dissertation put the argument forth that "Christ-faith" (the entire Christian worldview) is the more accurate translation. I personally believe it can be both.
"Hard climate Science". A contradiction in terms
You think?
Its not the issue about climate change, its wether their solutions will leave with reliable energy that is cheap. Industrial energy prices are highest in Europe already, if we want some growth maybe dont smother what industry we have left.
Hard science on climate change!! Do you realy mean computer projections remember science says nothing. , scientists do but if you have a different view defunding and canceling!!!
Sorry, what's your (MP) religion got to do with running a secular country in 2024? The less we talk publicly about religion the better
If I were God I'd ban religion.
secular country? A country where the head of state is also the head of the state church, where top church managers automatically get seats in one of the law-making bodies?
Not a lot even the Labour government don't know what they are going to do
Maybe they do. But you will never choose to find out.
@@ArtyFactual_Intelligence Are you sure you know what you are talking about
Before Brexit and DJT election
I got odds from a betting agent of 4/1 for brexit and 500/1 for trump becoming president
so I had 2000/1 going into my final bet
which was to place in the last 16 of the WSOP in Vegas - which I played in
its quite a moment to look back now
and reflect upon that
they wouldn't take the bet on my poker result
Choosing to affirm, not swear isn't a sign of secularism. It could be a sign of people actually practicing their religion according to their own scripture.
Christians, for example, should be affirming, not swearing. Jesus said "But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply “Yes,” or “No”; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." These words are recorded in Matthew 5:34-37, which is part of the bible that any hypocrites in the chamber might swear on.
Honestly who cares
@@ET76001The Quakers. They fought hard for this right.
Baby MPs...
Houses, houses, houses and also millions of onshore windmills 😊
@@markrozee windmills? Do we have a bread shortage now that we left the EU?
Development. COPE.
Starmer scares me
Faith is not rational.
Faith is absolutely rational: you just don’t understand what rationality, or what reality is.
Google Ted talks with Professor Donald Hoffman and learn :-)
@@tonyaustin4472 waow a personal attack, so glad to have you comment on my comment. What a wondrous thing the internet, eh? Faith is not rational. It was once upon a time, when we lacked sufficient knowledge to explain accurately, the world around us. Something we got better at with time and the scientific method. Faith and religious doctrine is however, no longer a rational method for establishing truth in the universe.
I don't want religion anywhere near any of the decisions made in parliament. Keep state and church seperate. But alas, when we have the head of the Church of England as King, and this particular church/religion, is based on the morals of Henry VIII, we haven't got a prayer (Pun intended).
The King may be Head of the Church of England,but he has no governmental power, cannot make laws, our governments ARE secular.
I wouldn't say we run the country through religion though? Does that even come up in rhetoric
@@the0nlytrueprophet942 Agree, religion doesn't figure in governmental decisions, nor as rhetoric like it does in the US. Plus our King is not able to make laws nor govern, whatever his faith.
I think the religion of elected politicians absolutely should influence them. Hopefully they went into politics so they can administer true justice; show mercy and compassion, and prevent oppression of the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Whether it is necessary to have Bishops in the Lords to achieve this is a different question - currently this is the formal link between church and state in the UK, with actual power to vote on laws. In the USA religious leaders have no formal power.
@@martineyles No, absolutely not, and here's why. Remember Tony Blair taking us into war with Iraq (with the Americans), despite much protest by the people of the UK? Much later, he admitted it had been a religious conviction, that his god had told him it was the right thing to do What most of us did not know at the time was he was a Catholic,,,, so no, religion has no place in governance. I often wonder if his god has told him where those imaginary weapons of mass destruction can be found even now...
Scientism is not sufficient - we are not all Ikea flat pack people - we think - but we also feel, we have values and beliefs. Scientism tries to technocratically shoehorn us all into the same box - that will never work - as Labour and other elitest technocrats will one day discover, but not until they have caused plenty of suffering and hardship along the way... One example: the "climate" stuff is not approached correctly. Simply because there are changes in rolling 30 year cycles etc, does not mean we should cut off all oil extraction and be taxed to the hilt to find £3trillion to create a load of wind turbines and solar panels over the country which won't provide proper energy independence. There has never been such cultish tosh put about. Oh, and btw - a woman is a woman, and a man is a man - of course I can put on a dress and make-up and pretend - but I'm still a bloke, Kier, Anneliese... it's not that difficult really...
😮💨
Second rate channel
The islamophobia laws comment seems extremely out of left field, never once seen labour suggest such a thing so why are we having it as part of the discussion, it's just baseless speculation.
As a soon-to-be Theology graduate, I believe that religions and faith have more influence on humanity and politics than one can ever imagine. This increasing secularism doesn't even dent it as much as it creates a new angle of conversation. Religion is not even supposed to be an object but a study of metaphysics, and a study of the rules of everything...
42 🤣🤣
Hard climate science.?....laughable.
Left wing extremism mainly
Oh! Dear. Clueless.
@@joewilson4191 In what way?
Starmer is a extremist.
A wrecking ball.
@@stephfoxwell4620 . An extremist? You aree definitely clueless. Who has been in government the last 14 years and totally wrecked the economy and the fabric of society? Not Labour!
🥱
@@Squarepeg57. Yep completely clueless.
Labour's fundamental values? On which day?
Pay attention
Look up the word fundamental and you may grasp the meaning of what was ssid.
@@joewilson4191
Labour, in its current form, is a party fundamentally committed to the Davos creed (see Starmer for details) and pursuant of that, will, and do, say whatever is needed on the day.
@@Chris-lr2qb
Back at you mate.
People do like when leaders have a belief system but as a European, most people would like this believe system being catholic or something similar (aka not Islam or Jewish)
Catholic!! Dear god, noooo, please spare us...and no I don't want my politicians nor government to be religious or have strong faith based belief - if they do, that should be private and kept away from their job. Faith and clear thinking do not go together....it is necessary to suspend disbelief to maintain a faith.
Christians, including Catholics, have much in common with Jews. They both share a lot of common scripture and a lot of common values, both about how you relate to God, but also about how you relate to your neighbour. The desire to love your neighbour should absolutely be part of the way you perform your public service.
@@martineyles Christian principles such as 'do as you would be done by' are basic teachings in all three Abrahamic monotheistic religions - in my experience, that does not mean that religious people abide by those teachings. Some of the most judgemental people I have met have actually been Christian, including catholics. Thats why I became agnostic...
@@mjwilliamsb2676It's a shame that people of faith have put you off. It's nothing new though - the bible records Jesus's disciple arguing about which of them is greatest, denying they know Jesus amongst many other flaws. I just hope I don't put people off myself, but I can't be certain I haven't.
@@martineyles It was just the final straw that broke the camel's back, that recognition... I had long been headed towards agnosticism anyway, though I still believe in the principles for living expressed by Jesus Christ. I dislike religion intensely because of all the rules and the misery they cause, with the threat of 'hell' if you break them. So not true, there Is no hell, except the one youi might create for yourself..God, or Source, is love. But I know some people need religious belief, find it a great comfort, and all roads lead home regardless. Peace and love to you...
*Tumbleweed Rolls*