Fertility for either direction trans can be (OK is probably normally) a serious problem. Blair White (A very non woke trans woman) made a vid a while back that she wanted to have a kid - so came off hormones - but basically her sperm was nuked from long term estrogen; so she'd have to look into other options with her partner It was a bit sad, and freezing eggs or sperm is probably something that should be brought up to have a serious conversation about when someone transitions because it's often not a thought on the radar when you're 17 or 18 or so.
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
Surely it’s m>f that might get offended. After all they have become women but are not able to become pregnant which undermines their womanhood?
Seems a daft thing to get worked up about
No, because "pregnant people" excludes them just as much as "pregnant women" since they are not pregnant; it is not as if "women" alone would fit.
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
Surely it’s m>f that might get offended. After all they have become women but are not able to become pregnant which undermines their womanhood?
Seems a daft thing to get worked up about
This 'a woman can get pregnant' thing is a little dangerous, as not all women can get pregnant. Even some younger women cannot.
The same can be said for 'a woman menstruates'. Not if, like a girl at my school, she'd sadly had her ovaries removed due to cancer.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
Surely it’s m>f that might get offended. After all they have become women but are not able to become pregnant which undermines their womanhood?
Seems a daft thing to get worked up about
This 'a woman can get pregnant' thing is a little dangerous, as not all women can get pregnant. Even some younger women cannot.
The same can be said for 'a woman menstruates'. Not if, like a girl at my school, she'd sadly had her ovaries removed due to cancer.
In reality the language argument is a proxy for that around the real issues of acceptance of the existence and rights of trans people.
Morning all too, it seems back to the cold again, and worrying reports of so many covid case rises tody.
Very interesting report here - it seems that that decades after they were discredited in many people's eyes, and banned by governments, parts of the medical establishment are beginning to become more favourable to very small doses of psychedelics. This also reminds me of the CIA's original governmental use of them between the late 1940's and early 1960's, but in a much more benign and less sinister context.
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
Surely it’s m>f that might get offended. After all they have become women but are not able to become pregnant which undermines their womanhood?
Seems a daft thing to get worked up about
This 'a woman can get pregnant' thing is a little dangerous, as not all women can get pregnant. Even some younger women cannot.
The same can be said for 'a woman menstruates'. Not if, like a girl at my school, she'd sadly had her ovaries removed due to cancer.
In reality the language argument is a proxy for that around the real issues of acceptance of the existence and rights of trans people.
Biology is messy, and people like simplicity. A few months ago I mentioned intersex people as an example of that messiness, only for another poster to say that, as intersex people are rare, they essentially don't exist.
Mr. Jessop, if that person was me (and I did write a post here with some scientific info on such things) they were right about the rarity. A book by Stainton-Rogers and Stainton Rogers (The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, I think) found something like 60 or fewer cases of actually intersex people (ie ovary one side, testicle the other) in North America/Europe over a century.
More minor deviation from the usual XY/XX chromosomal arrangement is more common but has correspondingly smaller biological effects.
Edited to put that into context: if we then rearrange language and common definitions according to such a tiny number then the larger number of synaesthesiacs[sp still sleepy] would be justification for rewriting the concept that the ears allow us to hear, as some people can see sounds.
This trans language thing is getting increasingly stupid. *Most* people with a uterus are women with the exceptions of the women not born with one or those who had it removed.
Done. Can we move on please and tell the "you're excluding me / you're demeaning womanhood" people to calm down?
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
Surely it’s m>f that might get offended. After all they have become women but are not able to become pregnant which undermines their womanhood?
Seems a daft thing to get worked up about
This 'a woman can get pregnant' thing is a little dangerous, as not all women can get pregnant. Even some younger women cannot.
The same can be said for 'a woman menstruates'. Not if, like a girl at my school, she'd sadly had her ovaries removed due to cancer.
I know. I included a policy on infertility but decided it was too early in the morning.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
#3 yes it is, it is an exit to normality.
If cases aren't rising exponentially without any restrictions then that is the exit.
Plus there was a wave because the sustained levels neglects the fact that for the first part of that sustained level the schools were closed, but for the second phase of that sustained level the schools were open. Therefore unless its your impression that opening schools has no impact on R (which we know not to be true) the exit wave did happen.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
Does indicate that Labour don't have a lot of very enthusiastic supporters, who can take time off work easily to go and campaign?
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
Good morning everyone. As someone noted upthread, it's cold again this morning.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
I've only bought it once but couldn't believe how expensive it was a good few years ago. Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
Does indicate that Labour don't have a lot of very enthusiastic supporters, who can take time off work easily to go and campaign?
I really don't think that Labour are short of activists in a seat near London. There is a lot more skill in contriving a message that resonates for the purposes of a by election than simply boots on the ground. Of course, from the Lib Dem's point of view it is important because they need to remind people they still exist. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have that urgency.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Mr. Jessop, if that person was me (and I did write a post here with some scientific info on such things) they were right about the rarity. A book by Stainton-Rogers and Stainton Rogers (The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, I think) found something like 60 or fewer cases of actually intersex people (ie ovary one side, testicle the other) in North America/Europe over a century.
More minor deviation from the usual XY/XX chromosomal arrangement is more common but has correspondingly smaller biological effects.
Edited to put that into context: if we then rearrange language and common definitions according to such a tiny number then the larger number of synaesthesiacs[sp still sleepy] would be justification for rewriting the concept that the ears allow us to hear, as some people can see sounds.
It depends on how you define 'Intersex': if you take the narrowest definition, you *may* be correct. If you realistically widen it to a range of conditions, it's larger. 1.7% of people with intersex traits is another figure.
The point is: biology is messy. Hermaphrodites were hardly unknown to the ancient world.
Besides, even if it's as rare as you claim, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged, or they don't exist.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
Does indicate that Labour don't have a lot of very enthusiastic supporters, who can take time off work easily to go and campaign?
I really don't think that Labour are short of activists in a seat near London. There is a lot more skill in contriving a message that resonates for the purposes of a by election than simply boots on the ground. Of course, from the Lib Dem's point of view it is important because they need to remind people they still exist. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have that urgency.
And the LibDems have (or had, and are now recovering) the advantage that there are generally more people willing to consider voting for them and fewer who absolutely wouldn’t. Thus they are always fishing in a larger pond.
Good morning everyone. As someone noted upthread, it's cold again this morning.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
I've only bought it once but couldn't believe how expensive it was a good few years ago. Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
It came on the market some while after I was concerned with these things in any more than a general interest sense, but I too felt was 'expensive'. I wonder if there was some element of paying for counselling built in. Could take quite a while to do that, and, in a single pharmacist pharmacy, hold up other work.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Whether he chooses that kind of path or not, I think Madame Priti is quite capable of advising him to move in that direction. It was she, after all, who attempted to end any Electoral Commission investigation into Vote Leave in advance, and now more recently has come up with parts of the Policing Bill so disturbing, and potentially dangerous, that even Theresa May is worried.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Frankly, no. Apart from anything else he actually has quite limited control over such things, unlike in America where it is under tight partisan control. For another, he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake, but rather for the rewards it brings, and he clearly expects them to be financial with lucrative lecture and book deals after leaving office. Fending off lawsuits the way Trump is would be expensive for him. Finally I will say with all his faults Johnson has never struck me as anti-democratic or autocratic in the way Trump clearly is.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
So many months wasted yet again when we could have been immunising teenagers and giving boosters to the whole adult population. Now we are going to try desperately to remedy it in a few weeks - or rather try to get the NHS to remedy it, as well as everything else they are going to have to cope with. And still with a persistent 40,000 cases of Delta on top of what's about to happen. Yet again dragged far too late into doing what was only common sense, which has been left undone for no fathomable reason.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Hot on the heels on #1 I see the government this morning is saying “no snogging under the mistletoe”. Although it won’t actually be illegal.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Frankly, no. Apart from anything else he actually has quite limited control over such things, unlike in America where it is under tight partisan control. For another, he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake, but rather for the rewards it brings, and he clearly expects them to be financial with lucrative lecture and book deals after leaving office. Fending off lawsuits the way Trump is would be expensive for him. Finally I will say with all his faults Johnson has never struck me as anti-democratic or autocratic in the way Trump clearly is.
I'm not sure I agree with you over the first part of your second sentence 'he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake' I don't think he's ever really got over the 'world king' thing, TBH.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Hot on the heels on #1 I see the government this morning is saying “no snogging under the mistletoe”. Although it won’t actually be illegal.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Frankly, no. Apart from anything else he actually has quite limited control over such things, unlike in America where it is under tight partisan control. For another, he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake, but rather for the rewards it brings, and he clearly expects them to be financial with lucrative lecture and book deals after leaving office. Fending off lawsuits the way Trump is would be expensive for him. Finally I will say with all his faults Johnson has never struck me as anti-democratic or autocratic in the way Trump clearly is.
I'm not sure I agree with you over the first part of your second sentence 'he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake' I don't think he's ever really got over the 'world king' thing, TBH.
Or the "use governmental structures to settle scores and reward old friends" thing, either.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
#3 yes it is, it is an exit to normality.
If cases aren't rising exponentially without any restrictions then that is the exit.
Plus there was a wave because the sustained levels neglects the fact that for the first part of that sustained level the schools were closed, but for the second phase of that sustained level the schools were open. Therefore unless its your impression that opening schools has no impact on R (which we know not to be true) the exit wave did happen.
I’d ignore him. He is another who has yet to realise that Covid is here forever now. If you keep looking for and reporting cases then we will keep finding them. Same as if we tested for flu in the same way. Of course this is the exit wave. Look at the kids cases. Plateau in school ages now, and I suspect will be falling soon. Of course putative greater mixing in December may counter that, or the boosters may send rates lower. Happily, current flap aside, we are in a pretty good place, and for the moment, better off than most of Europe. That is always subject to change.
So many months wasted yet again when we could have been immunising teenagers and giving boosters to the whole adult population. Now we are going to try desperately to remedy it in a few weeks - or rather try to get the NHS to remedy it, as well as everything else they are going to have to cope with. And still with a persistent 40,000 cases of Delta on top of what's about to happen. Yet again dragged far too late into doing what was only common sense, which has been left undone for no fathomable reason.
JCVI. The fault is 90% theirs, and 10% Hancock, for not getting them moving in the way Javid did.
Abortion rights activist tells Newsnight that US has poor healthcare in general for "pregnant people".
On one hand, it’s not wrong - they are people and they are pregnant. But what I don’t understand is why not just call them women? There is surely nothing discriminatory about that?
Of course there isn't.
But some idiots are afraid of bullying men who somehow think that saying what is true and correct is unfair to some men who would like to be women.
Men's feelings, you see, are much more important than anything else. And if we don't agree they'll scream and shout like deranged toddlers.
'Pregnant people' is obviously a term used as a courtesy to female-to-male trans people, which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology. So nothing to do with men's feelings (unless you're agreeing that ftm trans people are men?)
Oh look, a bullying man pops out of the woodwork
How many ftm trans people become pregnant?
By what stretch of the imagination was that post "bullying"?
"which would be women pretending to be men in your terminology" when the poster to whom he was replying implied nothing of the kind. By what stretch of the imagination is that not "bullying", you weapons-grade twonk?
So, you are saying that, as I am male, in not allowed to have a view on this? I had assumed from your username that you were make, but I apologise for that. But who use cancelling someone else's views here? You, apparently.
I don't know how many ftm trans people get pregnant, but of the two I do know, one has (and would hate to be called a pregnant woman) and the other (her husband), can't due to illness. So for me, 50%.
And as to 'bullying', if you check cyclefree's response to me, you will see that she herself refers to 'women who think they are men', so, no, not bullying, just an accurate reflection of her viewpoint.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
On 1 - this is why the story hurts and has legs
PMQs: PM under fire over No 10 lockdown Christmas parties. My 83 year old Dad told me he was dying and it would be his last Christmas. My Mum has terminal dementia. We drove 110 miles and exchanged presents in the rain in the garden. He died in March
And
petebarronmedia @PeteBarronMedia · 25m I drove from the North- East to London to collect my son for Christmas and the Government announced the lockdown just as I arrived in the capital. I then drove back without him - amid lots of family tears - because he didn’t feel it was right to take the risk. Meanwhile
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
In a very traditional, rock-solid Tory seat, moving from Tory to Labour is a huge leap when you could just stay at home instead. By contrast, it is a small jump to the LibDems. I suspect that explains most of the difference in the betting. And will explain much of the difference in the outcomes.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
You don't think he'll go full mini-Trump and go even harder on fixing elections..... making it more difficult for people to vote, fixing the Electoral Commission and so on?
Frankly, no. Apart from anything else he actually has quite limited control over such things, unlike in America where it is under tight partisan control. For another, he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake, but rather for the rewards it brings, and he clearly expects them to be financial with lucrative lecture and book deals after leaving office. Fending off lawsuits the way Trump is would be expensive for him. Finally I will say with all his faults Johnson has never struck me as anti-democratic or autocratic in the way Trump clearly is.
I'm not sure I agree with you over the first part of your second sentence 'he doesn't give the impression of being hungry for power for its own sake' I don't think he's ever really got over the 'world king' thing, TBH.
Or the "use governmental structures to settle scores and reward old friends" thing, either.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
On 1 - this is why the story hurts and has legs
PMQs: PM under fire over No 10 lockdown Christmas parties. My 83 year old Dad told me he was dying and it would be his last Christmas. My Mum has terminal dementia. We drove 110 miles and exchanged presents in the rain in the garden. He died in March
And
petebarronmedia @PeteBarronMedia · 25m I drove from the North- East to London to collect my son for Christmas and the Government announced the lockdown just as I arrived in the capital. I then drove back without him - amid lots of family tears - because he didn’t feel it was right to take the risk. Meanwhile
If people thought Covid was over it also might have much less legs. But now we're all back feeling vaguely uncertain about what Christmas might bring, just like last year, or at least reminded precisely now of last year's travails.
Morning all! A few thoughts: 1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices 2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa 3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
On 1 - this is why the story hurts and has legs
PMQs: PM under fire over No 10 lockdown Christmas parties. My 83 year old Dad told me he was dying and it would be his last Christmas. My Mum has terminal dementia. We drove 110 miles and exchanged presents in the rain in the garden. He died in March
And
petebarronmedia @PeteBarronMedia · 25m I drove from the North- East to London to collect my son for Christmas and the Government announced the lockdown just as I arrived in the capital. I then drove back without him - amid lots of family tears - because he didn’t feel it was right to take the risk. Meanwhile
If people also thought Covid was over it ould also have much less legs. But now we're all back feeling vaguely uncertain about what Christmas might bring, just like last year, or are at least reminded precisely now of the previous year's travails.
+1 - last week it was a meh story, now its relevant again.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
"it's the scientific definition."
Care to link to that, please, as most places seem to deem it as a range of conditions? Caster Semenya is an example, I think, of someone who has an intersex trait but not the one you mention?
I really don't understand why people find it so difficult to contemplate that things might not be as binary as they'd like them to be. The world isn't neat, and attempting to pigeonhole people into categories that they don't naturally fit all too frequently ends in pain and heartache.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
And to think N Farage is still waiting for his peerage.....
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
I'm not missing it, because the same thing is happening in North Shropshire now with Richard Tice running there. Again that won't happen at the next General Election which is why this is meaningless.
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
I'm not missing it, because the same thing is happening in North Shropshire now with Richard Tice running there. Again that won't happen at the next General Election which is why this is meaningless.
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
Tice in NS? Or do you just mean RefUK?
I agree, FWIW, on NS. Even if the LDs win, assuming that's mostly due to reduced Conservative turnout, I wouldn't be making long term political career plans if I was the new LD MP.
I do struggle to see the Cons losing OB&S, in part because of the circumstances - Brokenshire seems to have been both a good MP and popular. That surely drives some Conservative turnout, fewer Con voters wanting to give the Tories a bit of a kick to keep them honest, more wanting to express some respect for Brokenshire? But maybe I'm wrong on that and people don't really care. Are there data for by-elections following death of a well-liked local MP. Cox was obviously different; trying to think of other recent examples, but MPs don't often die of ill health in office nowadays.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
I'm not missing it, because the same thing is happening in North Shropshire now with Richard Tice running there. Again that won't happen at the next General Election which is why this is meaningless.
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
It's a pretty basic point that you don't know how significant by election results are until after the subsequent general election. But they undoubtedly matter a lot more to oppositions than to governments.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
I'm not missing it, because the same thing is happening in North Shropshire now with Richard Tice running there. Again that won't happen at the next General Election which is why this is meaningless.
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
Tice in NS? Or do you just mean RefUK?
I agree, FWIW, on NS. Even if the LDs win, assuming that's mostly due to reduced Conservative turnout, I wouldn't be making long term political career plans if I was the new LD MP.
I do struggle to see the Cons losing OB&S, in part because of the circumstances - Brokenshire seems to have been both a good MP and popular. That surely drives some Conservative turnout, fewer Con voters wanting to give the Tories a bit of a kick to keep them honest, more wanting to express some respect for Brokenshire? But maybe I'm wrong on that and people don't really care. Are there data for by-elections following death of a well-liked local MP. Cox was obviously different; trying to think of other recent examples, but MPs don't often die of ill health in office nowadays.
Maybe, I don't follow RefUK much as I think they're an even worse joke, so I might have got the 2 mixed up. Either way, anyone who thinks they're going to feature at the General Election is kidding themselves.
I would imagine the death of a well-liked local MP could be a double-edged sword as yes there may be less of a local desire to give a kicking, but on the other hand the personal vote that MP had may be lost. By all reports I believe Cheryl Gillan was well-liked but that didn't mean the Tories held only C&A. They'll probably regain it at the next General Election though.
Good morning everyone. As someone noted upthread, it's cold again this morning.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
I've only bought it once but couldn't believe how expensive it was a good few years ago. Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
Or the assumption that people who need to product are not particularly price sensitive at that point in time
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
Me too. I do think some allowance needs to be made that while NS is a by-election because of egregious bad behaviour by their Tory MP, justifying a backlash, while OBS is because of the death of a popular and dedicated MP.
The differing circumstances need to be factored into the analysis of swing. I think both Con holds, but not much value, so have a nibble on vote share.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
Possibly. Or it possibly could be a mild case of Covid.
Either way, does it matter which it is?
Hope they recover quickly either way, but if they're especially concerned then could book a PCR Test which can pick up cases that LFTs can miss. When my wife tested positive she did so on a PCR having tested negative the day before on an LFT (she takes daily tests due to her job).
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
Might not the fall in the Conservative majority between 2017 and 2019 have been down to the voters thinking Paterson an arse? And some of that might rewind, with natural Tories more inclined to give the new candidate a chance?
So many months wasted yet again when we could have been immunising teenagers and giving boosters to the whole adult population. Now we are going to try desperately to remedy it in a few weeks - or rather try to get the NHS to remedy it, as well as everything else they are going to have to cope with. And still with a persistent 40,000 cases of Delta on top of what's about to happen. Yet again dragged far too late into doing what was only common sense, which has been left undone for no fathomable reason.
You realise we are actually doing relatively well?
Good morning everyone. As someone noted upthread, it's cold again this morning.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
I've only bought it once but couldn't believe how expensive it was a good few years ago. Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
Or the assumption that people who need to product are not particularly price sensitive at that point in time
What gets me is that it's an incredibly strange thing to put on special offer at any point though. There is no upside from doing so as now we know it's possible to sell the "morning after" pill at 1/2 the price, the only valid question is why aren't you doing it all the time.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
In the same way that the Tories losing Brecon and Radnorshire to the Lib Dems just after Boris became leader was an extinction level event? Surely that was a harbinger for a terrible election afterwards?
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Brecon and Radnor was a Lib Dem seat until 2010 and a place where they have always been a strong second.
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
And yet in 2017 the Tories had an 8038 vote majority while in 2019 they had a 7131 vote majority, despite this being a seat with a history of LD votes and a Lib Dem by-election victory in-between the two elections.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
You're missing the strong Brexit Party challenge in the by-election, which enabled the LDs to come through the middle, and that wasn't there in the GE. The Tories and BXP together got 50% of the vote in the by-election, which was therefore a pointer as to how things might go when the BXP conveniently stood aside.
I'm not missing it, because the same thing is happening in North Shropshire now with Richard Tice running there. Again that won't happen at the next General Election which is why this is meaningless.
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
Tice in NS? Or do you just mean RefUK?
I agree, FWIW, on NS. Even if the LDs win, assuming that's mostly due to reduced Conservative turnout, I wouldn't be making long term political career plans if I was the new LD MP.
I do struggle to see the Cons losing OB&S, in part because of the circumstances - Brokenshire seems to have been both a good MP and popular. That surely drives some Conservative turnout, fewer Con voters wanting to give the Tories a bit of a kick to keep them honest, more wanting to express some respect for Brokenshire? But maybe I'm wrong on that and people don't really care. Are there data for by-elections following death of a well-liked local MP. Cox was obviously different; trying to think of other recent examples, but MPs don't often die of ill health in office nowadays.
Maybe, I don't follow RefUK much as I think they're an even worse joke, so I might have got the 2 mixed up. Either way, anyone who thinks they're going to feature at the General Election is kidding themselves.
I would imagine the death of a well-liked local MP could be a double-edged sword as yes there may be less of a local desire to give a kicking, but on the other hand the personal vote that MP had may be lost. By all reports I believe Cheryl Gillan was well-liked but that didn't mean the Tories held only C&A. They'll probably regain it at the next General Election though.
Oh yes, Cheryl Gillan is an obivous good example. D'oh!
You're right, can work both ways, I guess. Could reduce the desire, from Con voters to give the Cons a bit of a mid-term telling off (opposite in NS, possibly). But, if there is a demographic shift away from Con but Brokenshire made that stickir with a personal vote then his passing could enable those who vote Tory more for historical than present reasons to stay home or go elsewhere.
Edit: And your 'Tice in NS' gave me a brief heart-in-mouth moment I'm not sure I'd be on RefUK for >5% in OB&S if it wasn't Tice running (maybe, but becomes a less obvious bet, I think).
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but the first causal link in the blood clot complication with the AZ vaccine has been found: platelet factor 4 protein clumps to the adenovirus surface if the vaccine finds its way into the blood stream and then the immune system mistakes the platelet factor 4 as part of the virus and produces antibodies against it as well as the viral proteins, which then attach to platelet factor 4 in the blood, forming the blood clots.
This is both good and bad news. It is bad news in that it means that we can expect similar complications with other vaccines which use this adenovirus as the vehicle for delivering the viral genetic materials into the patient (and AZ's adenovirus was developed to create an HIV vaccine); it is good news as it provides insight as to how this complication can be addressed, or which attenuated viruses to choose going forward as the delivery vehicle.
The specific problem is that the surface of the platelet factor 4 protein is positively charged and the surface of the adenovirus is very negatively charged. I would guess that researchers might be looking at genetic engineering to change the charge of the virus' surface, or possible creating a lipid membrane envelope for it, but I don't know what either might do to the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is quite possible that the very feature that makes it susceptible to this problem - the negative surface charge - is what helps it trigger such as strong T-cell response.
As JossiasJessop was saying upthread, biology is messy.
Good morning everyone. As someone noted upthread, it's cold again this morning.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
I've only bought it once but couldn't believe how expensive it was a good few years ago. Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
Or the assumption that people who need to product are not particularly price sensitive at that point in time
What gets me is that it's an incredibly strange thing to put on special offer at any point though. There is no upside from doing so as now we know it's possible to sell the "morning after" pill at 1/2 the price, the only valid question is why aren't you doing it all the time.
My thoughts, and the Guardian's columnists, too. Depends, of course, as well on the wholesalers/manufacturers price.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Not showing one in the locals, though, is it!
No and if the Old Bexley and Sidcup result is a solid Conservative hold with the Tories getting about 50% of the vote+ then that would confirm what the locals are showing, in Leave areas at least Starmer still making little impact and the Tories still relatively secure
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Not showing one in the locals, though, is it!
No and if the Old Bexley and Sidcup result is a solid Conservative hold with the Tories getting about 50% of the vote+ then that would confirm what the locals are showing, in Leave areas at least Starmer still making little impact and the Tories still relatively secure
It doesn't. What it shows is that in Leave areas where levelling up isn't an issue - the Tories are relatively secure...
Had the Tories been asked in September to pick 3 seats to defend these seats would have been very high up that list of potential seats. If Boris loses any of them then he has a problem.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
I've just renewed our Economist subs for another three years - a Christmas gift for Mrs J.
The renewal email states: "Another year of insight awaits"
Not 'three years'. a year. To make matters worse, the order summary shows the amount paid correctly, but makes no mention of the term.
Yes, it's trivial, but it's also annoying.
That sort of thing isn't trivial - it results in a pile of customer support calls that cost money.
The Economist used to get stuff like that right. I have been waiting for some time for them to 'ring me back in five minutes' which was their response when I rang with a query about renewing a subscription. I'm doubtful whether I shall bother now.
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Not showing one in the locals, though, is it!
No and if the Old Bexley and Sidcup result is a solid Conservative hold with the Tories getting about 50% of the vote+ then that would confirm what the locals are showing, in Leave areas at least Starmer still making little impact and the Tories still relatively secure
It doesn't. What it shows is that in Leave areas where levelling up isn't an issue - the Tories are relatively secure...
Had the Tories been asked in September to pick 3 seats to defend these seats would have been very high up that list of potential seats. If Boris loses any of them then he has a problem.
He doesn't unless they all go, after 11 years of a party in government opposition parties should be picking up government seats in by elections and getting big swings whereever they are.
In 1990 (the equivalent stage of time in power as now the last time we had a Tory government) even Kinnock's Labour won the likes of the Mid Staffordshire by election from the Tories on a huge 21% swing.
That helped set the way for Thatcher going not just the LD by election gain later that year in Eastbourne.
In Crewe and Nantwich in 2008 too, after 11 years of Labour government, Cameron's Conservatives won the by election from Labour with a big 17% swing.
If Starmer does not get a big swing to Labour in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight then it will be him with more of a problem than Boris
On topic is this not simply because the Lib Dems are pretty good at bye elections and Labour....aren't? Whilst I still think that a NS win by the Lib Dems is unlikely I certainly wouldn't rule it out. I will be genuinely astonished if Labour get even close in Bexley.
If the Tories lose North Shropshire I hope everyone has bets on Johnson leaving early next year. Given its demography, voting profile and location this really would be an extinction level event for him.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
No. Old Bexley and Sidcup today is far more important to Boris' future than North Shropshire.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Not showing one in the locals, though, is it!
No and if the Old Bexley and Sidcup result is a solid Conservative hold with the Tories getting about 50% of the vote+ then that would confirm what the locals are showing, in Leave areas at least Starmer still making little impact and the Tories still relatively secure
It doesn't. What it shows is that in Leave areas where levelling up isn't an issue - the Tories are relatively secure...
Had the Tories been asked in September to pick 3 seats to defend these seats would have been very high up that list of potential seats. If Boris loses any of them then he has a problem.
I am not sure that losing North Shropshire would be anything other than a justifiable reaction to Paterson's and Boris unacceptable behaviour, but coming just before Christmas and with many other issues including omicron and energy price inflation it will be soon forgotten, but not by the lib dems no doubt
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Can I ask you and other non-aggressive types a genuine question?
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
According to Prof Spector, a cough is no longer one of the key covid symptoms for those who are vaccinated - whereas it is prominent in the winter cold currently doing the rounds. However loss of taste/smell is a key symptom. If the loss of taste/smell is no more than you'd expect from having a bunged up nose, I'd bet on it being the cold. If it is more marked than that, best get a test.
Yes, I think get a test. LFTs aren't perfect, and they are as we all know not trivial to self-administer. Nothing much to lose by having an external test.
The current LFTs are dead easy to administer, and take only 15 minutes to give a result. They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
I've just renewed our Economist subs for another three years - a Christmas gift for Mrs J.
The renewal email states: "Another year of insight awaits"
Not 'three years'. a year. To make matters worse, the order summary shows the amount paid correctly, but makes no mention of the term.
Yes, it's trivial, but it's also annoying.
That sort of thing isn't trivial - it results in a pile of customer support calls that cost money.
The Economist used to get stuff like that right. I have been waiting for some time for them to 'ring me back in five minutes' which was their response when I rang with a query about renewing a subscription. I'm doubtful whether I shall bother now.
Which is so stupid, because the marginal cost to them of filling a subscription is pennies.
The Week magazine lost a recurring annual sub from me (present to someone else) because their system could not handle the surely incredibly common situation that I was both a donee from someone else, and a donor to someone else again, of gift subscriptions
Comments
It was a bit sad, and freezing eggs or sperm is probably something that should be brought up to have a serious conversation about when someone transitions because it's often not a thought on the radar when you're 17 or 18 or so.
The same can be said for 'a woman menstruates'. Not if, like a girl at my school, she'd sadly had her ovaries removed due to cancer.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/dec/02/californian-firm-touts-mushroom-leather-as-sustainability-gamechanger
First hint of how the new bio-manufacturing industries are set to change things.
1. If JHB is now getting fed more Bunga Bunga party info then this story is just getting going. As restrictions come back in and more likely to follow, this is perfect timing to highlight that the PM doesn't give a rat fuck about your rules and your sacrifices
2. Why did they sit on it? Timing is everything - q year ago they probably didn't want to damage poor Peppa
3. I think Philip mentioned our exit wave upthread. We haven't had an exit wave. A sustained 30-40k new cases every day for months on end is neither a wave nor an exit.
Very interesting report here - it seems that that decades after they were discredited in many people's eyes, and banned by governments, parts of the medical establishment are beginning to become more favourable to very small doses of psychedelics. This also reminds me of the CIA's original governmental use of them between the late 1940's and early 1960's, but in a much more benign and less sinister context.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/dec/02/people-microdosing-on-psychedelics-to-improve-wellbeing-during-pandemic
A very dangerous rabbithole IMO.
Mr. Jessop, if that person was me (and I did write a post here with some scientific info on such things) they were right about the rarity. A book by Stainton-Rogers and Stainton Rogers (The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality, I think) found something like 60 or fewer cases of actually intersex people (ie ovary one side, testicle the other) in North America/Europe over a century.
More minor deviation from the usual XY/XX chromosomal arrangement is more common but has correspondingly smaller biological effects.
Edited to put that into context: if we then rearrange language and common definitions according to such a tiny number then the larger number of synaesthesiacs[sp still sleepy] would be justification for rewriting the concept that the ears allow us to hear, as some people can see sounds.
Done. Can we move on please and tell the "you're excluding me / you're demeaning womanhood" people to calm down?
Who has he upset?
I've just got a set of 911R seats in 'Pepita' cloth for my 997 Turbo. They are both wonderful and wonderfully expensive.
It has, I think, been noted for years that both men and women can, intellectually/mentally, cross over a bit.
I also note what to me is an extraordinary 'special offer'; apparently Boots cut the price of the 'morning after' medication on Black Friday.
Snow here again. Not forecast. Fortunately not heavy either, just a light dusting.
If cases aren't rising exponentially without any restrictions then that is the exit.
Plus there was a wave because the sustained levels neglects the fact that for the first part of that sustained level the schools were closed, but for the second phase of that sustained level the schools were open. Therefore unless its your impression that opening schools has no impact on R (which we know not to be true) the exit wave did happen.
This is of course an excellent reason to hope for a Lib Dem win. I just don't think it very likely.
Felt like there was some odd moral judgement going on with the pricing.
The point is: biology is messy. Hermaphrodites were hardly unknown to the ancient world.
Besides, even if it's as rare as you claim, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged, or they don't exist.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/its-intersex-awareness-day-here-are-5-myths-we-need-to-shatter/
Surely Brecon and Radnorshire wouldn't have been immediately regained by the Tories at an actual real election just a couple of months later with an over 7,000 vote and 17% majority?
By-elections are a joke. If the Lib Dems win or lose, they remain a joke.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
I don't think he's ever really got over the 'world king' thing, TBH.
Of course this is the exit wave. Look at the kids cases. Plateau in school ages now, and I suspect will be falling soon. Of course putative greater mixing in December may counter that, or the boosters may send rates lower.
Happily, current flap aside, we are in a pretty good place, and for the moment, better off than most of Europe. That is always subject to change.
I don't know how many ftm trans people get pregnant, but of the two I do know, one has (and would hate to be called a pregnant woman) and the other (her husband), can't due to illness. So for me, 50%.
And as to 'bullying', if you check cyclefree's response to me, you will see that she herself refers to 'women who think they are men', so, no, not bullying, just an accurate reflection of her viewpoint.
PMQs: PM under fire over No 10 lockdown Christmas parties. My 83 year old Dad told me he was dying and it would be his last Christmas. My Mum has terminal dementia. We drove 110 miles and exchanged presents in the rain in the garden. He died in March
And
petebarronmedia
@PeteBarronMedia
·
25m
I drove from the North- East to London to collect my son for Christmas and the Government announced the lockdown just as I arrived in the capital. I then drove back without him - amid lots of family tears - because he didn’t feel it was right to take the risk. Meanwhile
North Shropshire has voted Tory in every election since 1906 and the Lib Dems are moribund there.
The two are not comparable.
Have a good morning.
Care to link to that, please, as most places seem to deem it as a range of conditions? Caster Semenya is an example, I think, of someone who has an intersex trait but not the one you mention?
I really don't understand why people find it so difficult to contemplate that things might not be as binary as they'd like them to be. The world isn't neat, and attempting to pigeonhole people into categories that they don't naturally fit all too frequently ends in pain and heartache.
That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
By-elections are not General Elections. The problem in Brecon and Radnorshire is simply that the Lib Dems got 13,826 votes in the by-election and 14,287 votes in the General Election . . . so their vote turned out for both. The Tories got 12,401 in the by-election and 21,958 in the General Election.
Opposition voters have an incentive to turn out in a by-election to give the government a kicking. Voters that want the government to be re-elected don't have much incentive to vote in a by-election.
You have a good morning too.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Psychology-Gender-Sexuality-Introduction/dp/0335202241/
https://twitter.com/_nickdavies/status/1466204363110633476?s=21
By-elections always attract these cranks and side votes that General Elections don't - and people who might vote for the government in a General Election get a 'free shot' to give the government a kicking at an election without seeing it risk the Opposition winning the election.
I agree, FWIW, on NS. Even if the LDs win, assuming that's mostly due to reduced Conservative turnout, I wouldn't be making long term political career plans if I was the new LD MP.
I do struggle to see the Cons losing OB&S, in part because of the circumstances - Brokenshire seems to have been both a good MP and popular. That surely drives some Conservative turnout, fewer Con voters wanting to give the Tories a bit of a kick to keep them honest, more wanting to express some respect for Brokenshire? But maybe I'm wrong on that and people don't really care. Are there data for by-elections following death of a well-liked local MP. Cox was obviously different; trying to think of other recent examples, but MPs don't often die of ill health in office nowadays.
I would imagine the death of a well-liked local MP could be a double-edged sword as yes there may be less of a local desire to give a kicking, but on the other hand the personal vote that MP had may be lost. By all reports I believe Cheryl Gillan was well-liked but that didn't mean the Tories held only C&A. They'll probably regain it at the next General Election though.
Very close friend of mine in the Home Counties has had a nasty headache, persistent dry cough and has lost sense of taste and smell.
Two days' at-home lateral flow tests both negative.
Any thoughts? Is this 'just a cold'?
The differing circumstances need to be factored into the analysis of swing. I think both Con holds, but not much value, so have a nibble on vote share.
Meanwhile Starmer and Reeves throwing Xmas Parties for rich lobbyists in Christmas present sans Rayner.
Yet looking like SK Scrooge with his uttering on cancelling Xmas events in Xmas future.
Whenever Johnson messes up SKS is incapable of taking advantage.
Proovided the Conservatives hold Old Bexley and Sidcup today with a solid majority then Boris will be safe and secure whatever happens in North Shropshire. Even if the LDs then won North Shropshire, Boris could then brush it off as a Paterson protest vote and a far from unusual triumph for the LD by election machine which is far better than the Labour by election machine.
If however the Conservative majority is slashed in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight and there is a big swing to Labour or Labour even gain the seat then Boris would be in trouble if that is followed by a big swing to the LDs in North Shropshire too. As that would suggest a more general swing across the country against Boris even in 2 Leave seats
Either way, does it matter which it is?
Hope they recover quickly either way, but if they're especially concerned then could book a PCR Test which can pick up cases that LFTs can miss. When my wife tested positive she did so on a PCR having tested negative the day before on an LFT (she takes daily tests due to her job).
Just a thought....
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
You're right, can work both ways, I guess. Could reduce the desire, from Con voters to give the Cons a bit of a mid-term telling off (opposite in NS, possibly). But, if there is a demographic shift away from Con but Brokenshire made that stickir with a personal vote then his passing could enable those who vote Tory more for historical than present reasons to stay home or go elsewhere.
Edit: And your 'Tice in NS' gave me a brief heart-in-mouth moment
That is a good twitter thread.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59418123
This is both good and bad news. It is bad news in that it means that we can expect similar complications with other vaccines which use this adenovirus as the vehicle for delivering the viral genetic materials into the patient (and AZ's adenovirus was developed to create an HIV vaccine); it is good news as it provides insight as to how this complication can be addressed, or which attenuated viruses to choose going forward as the delivery vehicle.
The specific problem is that the surface of the platelet factor 4 protein is positively charged and the surface of the adenovirus is very negatively charged. I would guess that researchers might be looking at genetic engineering to change the charge of the virus' surface, or possible creating a lipid membrane envelope for it, but I don't know what either might do to the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is quite possible that the very feature that makes it susceptible to this problem - the negative surface charge - is what helps it trigger such as strong T-cell response.
As JossiasJessop was saying upthread, biology is messy.
It's as if being ideologically pure matters more than being an alternative government.
Had the Tories been asked in September to pick 3 seats to defend these seats would have been very high up that list of potential seats. If Boris loses any of them then he has a problem.
The point is that she neither sought or needed medical intervention and it was like a typical flu type cold
In my opinion this is much the reason for the levels or daily infections not resulting in increasing hospital and deaths and why they are falling
In 1990 (the equivalent stage of time in power as now the last time we had a Tory government) even Kinnock's Labour won the likes of the Mid Staffordshire by election from the Tories on a huge 21% swing.
That helped set the way for Thatcher going not just the LD by election gain later that year in Eastbourne.
In Crewe and Nantwich in 2008 too, after 11 years of Labour government, Cameron's Conservatives won the by election from Labour with a big 17% swing.
If Starmer does not get a big swing to Labour in Old Bexley and Sidcup tonight then it will be him with more of a problem than Boris
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
They will tell you with around 95% certainty whether you are currently shedding enough virus to be infectious. They're not intended to diagnose infection.
The Week magazine lost a recurring annual sub from me (present to someone else) because their system could not handle the surely incredibly common situation that I was both a donee from someone else, and a donor to someone else again, of gift subscriptions