Best Of

Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.

I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.

But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...

I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.

However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.

Hang on, the "loony net zero policies" are Tory policies. Leader after leader after leader. On the day Liz Truss blew up her government it was an opposition debate on Fracking and the SofS stood there are the dispatch lauding their policies on net zero and renewables.

So they're not "loony net zero". They are the established and consensual policies of both parties.

https://x.com/drneilhudson/status/2035044504177143851

A proposal has been submitted for 150 houses in #TheydonBois on #GreenBelt.
Green Belt protects the nature of our precious village.
I will continue to do everything I can working with community groups & residents to oppose this development & to stand up for our community.

And this is why the Tories are not yet ready for government. They’re still as NIMBY as ever.

All parties do this.

In a recent Guardian article an "environmental activist" in Lincolnshire didn't want to be identified. He was decrying local opposition to solar farms.

The reason he didn't want to be named - he is a Green candidate in the area, and has opposition to the solar farms in his platform

Most people accept, sometimes reluctantly, the need for new buildings.

They find it almost impossible to accept the idea of new buildings near them.

If only we had a neat acronym for that mindset.

https://x.com/drneilhudson/status/2035044504177143851

A proposal has been submitted for 150 houses in #TheydonBois on #GreenBelt.
Green Belt protects the nature of our precious village.
I will continue to do everything I can working with community groups & residents to oppose this development & to stand up for our community.

And this is why the Tories are not yet ready for government. They’re still as NIMBY as ever.

He is right, most voters do want to protect our precious greenbelt, local LD councillors are massively opposed to that Theydon development and Neil knows he needs LD tactical votes to hold his seat and beat Reform

As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.

Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.

Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky

Please don't talk about people on here in a collective way. It pisses me off to have views assigned to me that I don't share. I still think the Ukraine War is by far the more important conduct, which is one reason why the Iran War is such a colossal mistake - it distracts from Ukraine and makes it harder for Ukraine to win.

If there are some posters on here who fit your description have the courage to name them directly, rather than using a group description that encompasses all of those who are strong supporters of Ukraine.

AI bubble is also likely to burst this year. And good thing too as the slop can end.

Got my first AI slop pull request on an open source project of mine this morning. Ugh.

Can u translate that to English please.

I write free software - and the code is freely available too. It's a collaborative process so, instead of just asking for a new feature, a user - if they are also a programmer - can simply implement the new feature and submit the code differences to me, hoping I will include it officially. This is called a pull request.

Sadly, AI knows how to code and write plausible pull requests. Such AI pull requests take more effort to review than to write. And are almost invariably worthless. And unmarked. And plausible. It's like being bothered in the street by a beggar with a long sob story.

It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.

Treat all people with dignity and respect.

When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.

However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.

If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.

Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.

But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.

So we're not there yet.

There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.

If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".

They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.

What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.

That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.

I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.

I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.

If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.

Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.

However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?

And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.

There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.

I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.

That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.

The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.

The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).

The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.

Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?