NEW Michael Ashcroft's biography of Carrie Johnson is published on Mar 22 It will "offer the electorate the chance to assess exactly what role she plays in Boris Johnson’s unpredictable administration and why that matters", the publisher says More in Chopper's Politics Newsletter https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1488927363752677385
The Good Lord cashing in before (or just after) the Johnson's are history?
What the Good Lord giveth, the Good Lord taketh away.
It's truly ridiculous how the critics of Patel vanish when tested. I really like the idea of an annoyoing, short, Indian, and whirlwind like young lady being in power.
She's a disgraced national security risk.
Ridiculous.- national security risk - you're far worse, and I'm a little worse. She's no risk at all.
It's truly ridiculous how the critics of Patel vanish when tested. I really like the idea of an annoyoing, short, Indian, and whirlwind like young lady being in power.
There's really not much vanishing going on. You can make a point about ME not being articulate in why I hate her and dismiss it as irrational, but other people are putting pretty solid reasons on the table.
How about, you’re a racist but you cannot possibly accept that, hence your confusion?
She’s a small, smirking, not-posh Asian woman with right wing beliefs. She fails you, racially. She should be Left
I've been thinking more about the politicians who wind me up to an inexplicable level: Patel Blackford Hoyle Nandy
I dislike each of them far more than I should. What do they have in common? I can't think of anything.
It's an interesting list, none of those annoy me. The politicians I really get triggered by are: JRM - precision engineered to trigger me Osborne - unbearably smug sneering face Leadsome - reminds me of my grandma's horrible right wing friends Corbyn - pedantic and unimaginative (although fair play to him in 2017, that exit poll means I can't hate him completely).
Stayed in cabinet when everyone else knew the government and leader was in the wrong and that the only moral course was to say so and resign (was the Savile slur the last new excuse giving clear grounds to do this?)
The billions of payments to fraudulent bogus companies which a nine year old would have spotted coming down the tracks
On staying in cabinet, you can throw that argument at Starmer, who seemed quite at home in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. I suspect that quite a few conservative MP's were hoping to keep Johnson until the catastrophic local elections in May as the right time to knife him. New leader installed in time for the conference. Reset the direction, 18 months to bed in, with some judicious tax cuts bribes to electorate and bingo... Sadly the oaf is not even capable of lasting this long.
A difference. Starmer isn't a candidate for Tory leader. Whataboutery cuts no ice with MPs or Tory members weighing up the options.
Timing is everything. It is too late for a significant government figure suddenly to find their Damascus road experience. Several million voters got there before him. If you didn't twig with the Savile slur after everything else, you don't get it.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Photos. We need photos!
It's not as exciting as your office
It is to me
Lots of memories of first class trips to London and of course a lifetime love of all things trains
Never been first class on a train. Something to look forward to!
I used to find Ed Balls unaccountably irritating. And had a much stronger reaction to Corbyn to most politicians, to the point I felt my stance required me to vote Tory in 2017.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
When looking at a reform it's relevant where else it has been done and with what impact. People are saying self-Id is a perverts charter and an attack on women's rights, yet several countries have adopted self-Id and it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights. Germany is about to join these countries. When the UK government looked at this in 2018 they concluded that self-Id was a positive reform - because it would help this minority and harm nobody else. The Women & Equalities Committee of the HoC has recently re-endorsed this in their report of Dec 21. There are some solid arguments for this reform. People who are interested should take a look at them.
Do you have any links to studies from these countries evidencing that "it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights"? For example, that attacks on female prisoners have not increased since the change was made?
Seems there is lot of silliness on trans rights on these boards just as there is from self indulgent commentators in the Times and the Observer. Tom Harwood on GB news has far more sensible views on trans rights and has pointed out that prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis.
Germany seems a lot better on trans rights and there is no controversy in their gvt about it.
I don't think people like Rosie Duffield and cyclefree understand the equality act and if they do they want to repeal parts of it.
So it's lots of people on "these boards", Times, Observer, cyclefree and Rosie Duffield vs tom fucking harwood, and "Gary." Christ, imagine having the audacity to want to repeal part of an Act of Parliament, and failing to see the stunningly obvious point that "prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis."
London mayor Sadiq Khan could shut the Tube for days on end and close bridges and tunnels as a black hole in the city's transport budget soars to £1.5bn.
Having spent 3 days in London I can understand the problem. The lack of people travelling about in the middle is marked. I had seen some pictures but couldn't believe it until I saw it.
The drop in revenue must be brutal.
The tube is pretty busy at weekends. It's during weekday rush hour that it's incredibly quiet.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
NEW Michael Ashcroft's biography of Carrie Johnson is published on Mar 22 It will "offer the electorate the chance to assess exactly what role she plays in Boris Johnson’s unpredictable administration and why that matters", the publisher says More in Chopper's Politics Newsletter https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1488927363752677385
I imagine Ashcroft biographies are by Ashcroft, in the same way Ashcroft polls are. Ghosted by Dom.
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Why is she so hated? I think she's really very good. Obviously has faults too.
Not sure hate but certainly dislike intensely and, to some extent, fear.
She is rabidly authoritarian yet pretends she is not. She appears to be, quite literally, an old fashioned hang-em and flog-em type of Home Secretary. Okay to be fair I have never heard her mention flogging but she has in the past being strongly in favour of the death penalty and I think her fundamental view is still in favour even if she cannot admit that publicly. There is no subtlety about her and the only language she seems to understand in terms of her job is that of threat and force.
I will be very glad when she is away from the Home Office.
Mostly I agree with you RT. I really like Patel though. Easily, in my view, the best plausible PM after Boris. I don't often find myself so far out on the wings.
You’re not alone. I like her and admire her. I also - God help me - slightly fancy her
First time I met her Tony Newton, our ex-MP, was walking through a local fete and I thought 'what's he doing with that attractive Asian girl?' Quite a few years ago now, of course.
She is genuinely attractive. Phenomenal cheekbones
Quite broad in the beam, but one can, er, overlook that
Smart and wise though..
Whatever it is she doesn't deserve the unpopularity.
Well, she annoys lefties because she's very authoritarian. And she annoys righties because she's done a very poor job with migrant border crossings.
While in her previous role, she travelled to Israel, had a bunch of work meetings. Then lied about it to the Prime Minister. Was forgiven. More revelations came out. She then lied again. And after being lied to a second time, the Prime Minister was less forgiving.
She has a great personal backstory, is attractive and articulate. She's clearly not stupid.
But I'm not convinced she would be a great PM.
Someone else who has a problem with the truth may not be a good replacement. I don't like her, but she would still be an improvement, but then the bar is so low.
Honestly, if Patel became PM, I'd join the SNP the same day.
Everybody agrees with you. It's just me that doesn't understand why.
I read your comment earlier and tried to see it from your point of view. I just can't manage it. I don't think she has anything redeeming about her. I wouldn't even say that about Corbyn or Boris. She might be the worst person in the world.
I don't get the why of this.
I find myself unable to explain, which is why I didn't reply to your original post. It's a visceral and wordless hate. I can normally articulate what I like or dislike about someone, but with Patel all I get is the words "SMIRKING GHOUL" and there it stops.
My guess is: her alleged support of the Death Penalty
It makes liberals get shingles in horror
They think she's a race traitor. There's really not more to it than that.
Huh? No it really is the hangin' and floggin', oh and dropping her 'g's.
I've been thinking more about the politicians who wind me up to an inexplicable level: Patel Blackford Hoyle Nandy
I dislike each of them far more than I should. What do they have in common? I can't think of anything.
I am with you on most, except Hoyle. Think he is doing a good job. I think smugness is the commonality with the other three. Smug with little to be smug about.
Patel and Blackford have in common that listening to them speak is an exercise in pure duration. Neither ever have anything of interest to say, even when it is important. Specialists in empty words and redundant sounds.
I've been thinking more about the politicians who wind me up to an inexplicable level: Patel Blackford Hoyle Nandy
I dislike each of them far more than I should. What do they have in common? I can't think of anything.
It's an interesting list, none of those annoy me. The politicians I really get triggered by are: JRM - precision engineered to trigger me Osborne - unbearably smug sneering face Leadsome - reminds me of my grandma's horrible right wing friends Corbyn - pedantic and unimaginative (although fair play to him in 2017, that exit poll means I can't hate him completely).
Oh you can sign me up for the Leadsom Irrational Hate Club too. JRM and Corbyn, I think I dislike both of them the "right" amount. Osborne.... uh, I like him more than I should. He was a bit of an Alan B'Stard figure. A rogue, but a fun one.
Leadsom and Patel, it's really easy: nobody likes a liar. One bit.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
London mayor Sadiq Khan could shut the Tube for days on end and close bridges and tunnels as a black hole in the city's transport budget soars to £1.5bn.
Having spent 3 days in London I can understand the problem. The lack of people travelling about in the middle is marked. I had seen some pictures but couldn't believe it until I saw it.
The drop in revenue must be brutal.
The tube is pretty busy at weekends. It's during weekday rush hour that it's incredibly quiet.
I've been thinking more about the politicians who wind me up to an inexplicable level: Patel Blackford Hoyle Nandy
I dislike each of them far more than I should. What do they have in common? I can't think of anything.
It's an interesting list, none of those annoy me. The politicians I really get triggered by are: JRM - precision engineered to trigger me Osborne - unbearably smug sneering face Leadsome - reminds me of my grandma's horrible right wing friends Corbyn - pedantic and unimaginative (although fair play to him in 2017, that exit poll means I can't hate him completely).
I have a soft spot for Angela, purely because she facilitates a tortured PB-style pun:
Angela Leadsom to believe she was leadership material (etc etc)
Stayed in cabinet when everyone else knew the government and leader was in the wrong and that the only moral course was to say so and resign (was the Savile slur the last new excuse giving clear grounds to do this?)
The billions of payments to fraudulent bogus companies which a nine year old would have spotted coming down the tracks
On staying in cabinet, you can throw that argument at Starmer, who seemed quite at home in Corbyn's shadow cabinet. I suspect that quite a few conservative MP's were hoping to keep Johnson until the catastrophic local elections in May as the right time to knife him. New leader installed in time for the conference. Reset the direction, 18 months to bed in, with some judicious tax cuts bribes to electorate and bingo... Sadly the oaf is not even capable of lasting this long.
A difference. Starmer isn't a candidate for Tory leader. Whataboutery cuts no ice with MPs or Tory members weighing up the options.
Timing is everything. It is too late for a significant government figure suddenly to find their Damascus road experience. Several million voters got there before him. If you didn't twig with the Savile slur after everything else, you don't get it.
Yes - I think he possibly has missed the boat, but I was trying to suggest why. I don't think potential leaders wanted to take over now (or in a couple of months) but would rather it was in say August, leading into conference. Whatever. Sometimes the 'best' time is not ideal, but its when you have to do it.
I've been thinking more about the politicians who wind me up to an inexplicable level: Patel Blackford Hoyle Nandy
I dislike each of them far more than I should. What do they have in common? I can't think of anything.
It's an interesting list, none of those annoy me. The politicians I really get triggered by are: JRM - precision engineered to trigger me Osborne - unbearably smug sneering face Leadsome - reminds me of my grandma's horrible right wing friends Corbyn - pedantic and unimaginative (although fair play to him in 2017, that exit poll means I can't hate him completely).
Oh you can sign me up for the Leadsom Irrational Hate Club too. JRM and Corbyn, I think I dislike both of them the "right" amount. Osborne.... uh, I like him more than I should. He was a bit of an Alan B'Stard figure. A rogue, but a fun one.
Leadsom and Patel, it's really easy: nobody likes a liar. One bit.
Angela Leadsom to believe the rampant falsehoods she was spouting.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Photos. We need photos!
It's not as exciting as your office
It is to me
Lots of memories of first class trips to London and of course a lifetime love of all things trains
Never been first class on a train. Something to look forward to!
Years ago a fellow PhD student used to regularly travel 1st class from Norwich to London at weekends. Apparently it was 5 quid extra, and he rated it worth it, even on his lowly PhD stipend.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
When it is known not to work? Yes, I would say so.
It's a terrible comment to make. We needed that PPE. We paid the going price for it. The idea that £4.3 billion was given to fraudsters is a far worse lie than anything about Johnson's parties.
I guess people like you would have preferred us not to get the PPE, so you could then scream and shout about the government's failure to get it?
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
Yes, if they are colluding with the buyer's agent to ensure the buyer overpays.
Who needed to collude? The demand during those months in 2020 was through the roof, people could charge what they wanted because there was such desperation to get hold of it.
I used to find Ed Balls unaccountably irritating. And had a much stronger reaction to Corbyn to most politicians, to the point I felt my stance required me to vote Tory in 2017.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
That's a good line. I'd actually go more precise and say they cancelled HS2 for the North East to bung their fraudster mates £4.3bn or something like that. Link that wasted money to something really tangible.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
Yes, if they are colluding with the buyer's agent to ensure the buyer overpays.
Who needed to collude? The demand during those months in 2020 was through the roof, people could charge what they wanted because there was such desperation to get hold of it.
You are still not allowed to sell unfit for purpose products at over inflated prices, which is one of the charges.
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Why is she so hated? I think she's really very good. Obviously has faults too.
Not sure hate but certainly dislike intensely and, to some extent, fear.
She is rabidly authoritarian yet pretends she is not. She appears to be, quite literally, an old fashioned hang-em and flog-em type of Home Secretary. Okay to be fair I have never heard her mention flogging but she has in the past being strongly in favour of the death penalty and I think her fundamental view is still in favour even if she cannot admit that publicly. There is no subtlety about her and the only language she seems to understand in terms of her job is that of threat and force.
I will be very glad when she is away from the Home Office.
Mostly I agree with you RT. I really like Patel though. Easily, in my view, the best plausible PM after Boris. I don't often find myself so far out on the wings.
You’re not alone. I like her and admire her. I also - God help me - slightly fancy her
First time I met her Tony Newton, our ex-MP, was walking through a local fete and I thought 'what's he doing with that attractive Asian girl?' Quite a few years ago now, of course.
She is genuinely attractive. Phenomenal cheekbones
Quite broad in the beam, but one can, er, overlook that
Smart and wise though..
Whatever it is she doesn't deserve the unpopularity.
Well, she annoys lefties because she's very authoritarian. And she annoys righties because she's done a very poor job with migrant border crossings.
While in her previous role, she travelled to Israel, had a bunch of work meetings. Then lied about it to the Prime Minister. Was forgiven. More revelations came out. She then lied again. And after being lied to a second time, the Prime Minister was less forgiving.
She has a great personal backstory, is attractive and articulate. She's clearly not stupid.
But I'm not convinced she would be a great PM.
Someone else who has a problem with the truth may not be a good replacement. I don't like her, but she would still be an improvement, but then the bar is so low.
Honestly, if Patel became PM, I'd join the SNP the same day.
Everybody agrees with you. It's just me that doesn't understand why.
I read your comment earlier and tried to see it from your point of view. I just can't manage it. I don't think she has anything redeeming about her. I wouldn't even say that about Corbyn or Boris. She might be the worst person in the world.
I don't get the why of this.
I find myself unable to explain, which is why I didn't reply to your original post. It's a visceral and wordless hate. I can normally articulate what I like or dislike about someone, but with Patel all I get is the words "SMIRKING GHOUL" and there it stops.
My guess is: her alleged support of the Death Penalty
It makes liberals get shingles in horror
Nothing alleged about it.
The thing that scares me was the fact she believed nobody innocent is ever convicted.
That wasn't the problem, it was that she said 'well, if they're later discovered to be innocent they can be pardoned then'.
Which is fine, except by that time the person would be dead/
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
I used to find Ed Balls unaccountably irritating. And had a much stronger reaction to Corbyn to most politicians, to the point I felt my stance required me to vote Tory in 2017.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
It is often the case that people you loathe from a distance turn out to be completely different when you meet them. The loathing disappears and you suddenly appreciate that this is a human being of warmth, wit and charm. You realise how wrong you have been all along and gladly acknowledge it.
I shared your dislike of Ed Balls from a distance, however irrational it may have been. Then one day I got to meet him and found to my astonishment that the real person was even more loathsome, charmless and lacking in human warmth than I had ever previously imagined.
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Why is she so hated? I think she's really very good. Obviously has faults too.
Not sure hate but certainly dislike intensely and, to some extent, fear.
She is rabidly authoritarian yet pretends she is not. She appears to be, quite literally, an old fashioned hang-em and flog-em type of Home Secretary. Okay to be fair I have never heard her mention flogging but she has in the past being strongly in favour of the death penalty and I think her fundamental view is still in favour even if she cannot admit that publicly. There is no subtlety about her and the only language she seems to understand in terms of her job is that of threat and force.
I will be very glad when she is away from the Home Office.
Mostly I agree with you RT. I really like Patel though. Easily, in my view, the best plausible PM after Boris. I don't often find myself so far out on the wings.
You’re not alone. I like her and admire her. I also - God help me - slightly fancy her
First time I met her Tony Newton, our ex-MP, was walking through a local fete and I thought 'what's he doing with that attractive Asian girl?' Quite a few years ago now, of course.
She is genuinely attractive. Phenomenal cheekbones
Quite broad in the beam, but one can, er, overlook that
Smart and wise though..
Whatever it is she doesn't deserve the unpopularity.
Well, she annoys lefties because she's very authoritarian. And she annoys righties because she's done a very poor job with migrant border crossings.
While in her previous role, she travelled to Israel, had a bunch of work meetings. Then lied about it to the Prime Minister. Was forgiven. More revelations came out. She then lied again. And after being lied to a second time, the Prime Minister was less forgiving.
She has a great personal backstory, is attractive and articulate. She's clearly not stupid.
But I'm not convinced she would be a great PM.
Someone else who has a problem with the truth may not be a good replacement. I don't like her, but she would still be an improvement, but then the bar is so low.
Honestly, if Patel became PM, I'd join the SNP the same day.
Everybody agrees with you. It's just me that doesn't understand why.
I read your comment earlier and tried to see it from your point of view. I just can't manage it. I don't think she has anything redeeming about her. I wouldn't even say that about Corbyn or Boris. She might be the worst person in the world.
I don't get the why of this.
I find myself unable to explain, which is why I didn't reply to your original post. It's a visceral and wordless hate. I can normally articulate what I like or dislike about someone, but with Patel all I get is the words "SMIRKING GHOUL" and there it stops.
My guess is: her alleged support of the Death Penalty
It makes liberals get shingles in horror
Nothing alleged about it.
The thing that scares me was the fact she believed nobody innocent is ever convicted.
That wasn't the problem, it was that she said 'well, if they're later discovered to be innocent they can be pardoned then'.
Which is fine, except by that time the person would be dead/
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Why is she so hated? I think she's really very good. Obviously has faults too.
Not sure hate but certainly dislike intensely and, to some extent, fear.
She is rabidly authoritarian yet pretends she is not. She appears to be, quite literally, an old fashioned hang-em and flog-em type of Home Secretary. Okay to be fair I have never heard her mention flogging but she has in the past being strongly in favour of the death penalty and I think her fundamental view is still in favour even if she cannot admit that publicly. There is no subtlety about her and the only language she seems to understand in terms of her job is that of threat and force.
I will be very glad when she is away from the Home Office.
Mostly I agree with you RT. I really like Patel though. Easily, in my view, the best plausible PM after Boris. I don't often find myself so far out on the wings.
You’re not alone. I like her and admire her. I also - God help me - slightly fancy her
First time I met her Tony Newton, our ex-MP, was walking through a local fete and I thought 'what's he doing with that attractive Asian girl?' Quite a few years ago now, of course.
She is genuinely attractive. Phenomenal cheekbones
Quite broad in the beam, but one can, er, overlook that
Smart and wise though..
Whatever it is she doesn't deserve the unpopularity.
Well, she annoys lefties because she's very authoritarian. And she annoys righties because she's done a very poor job with migrant border crossings.
While in her previous role, she travelled to Israel, had a bunch of work meetings. Then lied about it to the Prime Minister. Was forgiven. More revelations came out. She then lied again. And after being lied to a second time, the Prime Minister was less forgiving.
She has a great personal backstory, is attractive and articulate. She's clearly not stupid.
But I'm not convinced she would be a great PM.
Someone else who has a problem with the truth may not be a good replacement. I don't like her, but she would still be an improvement, but then the bar is so low.
Honestly, if Patel became PM, I'd join the SNP the same day.
Everybody agrees with you. It's just me that doesn't understand why.
I read your comment earlier and tried to see it from your point of view. I just can't manage it. I don't think she has anything redeeming about her. I wouldn't even say that about Corbyn or Boris. She might be the worst person in the world.
I don't get the why of this.
I find myself unable to explain, which is why I didn't reply to your original post. It's a visceral and wordless hate. I can normally articulate what I like or dislike about someone, but with Patel all I get is the words "SMIRKING GHOUL" and there it stops.
My guess is: her alleged support of the Death Penalty
It makes liberals get shingles in horror
Nothing alleged about it.
The thing that scares me was the fact she believed nobody innocent is ever convicted.
That wasn't the problem, it was that she said 'well, if they're later discovered to be innocent they can be pardoned then'.
Which is fine, except by that time the person would be dead/
Look, you cannot make am omlette of punishment without a few fatal miscarriages of justice.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
When it is known not to work? Yes, I would say so.
It's a terrible comment to make. We needed that PPE. We paid the going price for it. The idea that £4.3 billion was given to fraudsters is a far worse lie than anything about Johnson's parties.
I guess people like you would have preferred us not to get the PPE, so you could then scream and shout about the government's failure to get it?
The £4.3 billion to fraudsters is about the write off for BBL by Sunak.
The write down for price gouged PPE is a separate issue. I don't see why there has not been a thorough audit of the decision process for those contracts to see who profited. It seems the Tories are no longer interested in value for taxpayers money
I wonder why this has leaked today. Priti on manoeuvres?
The BBC reporting that last year No.10 overruled the Home Secretary to keep the Met Commissioner in her job. One for historians of Johnson's fall to ponder.
Why is she so hated? I think she's really very good. Obviously has faults too.
Not sure hate but certainly dislike intensely and, to some extent, fear.
She is rabidly authoritarian yet pretends she is not. She appears to be, quite literally, an old fashioned hang-em and flog-em type of Home Secretary. Okay to be fair I have never heard her mention flogging but she has in the past being strongly in favour of the death penalty and I think her fundamental view is still in favour even if she cannot admit that publicly. There is no subtlety about her and the only language she seems to understand in terms of her job is that of threat and force.
I will be very glad when she is away from the Home Office.
Mostly I agree with you RT. I really like Patel though. Easily, in my view, the best plausible PM after Boris. I don't often find myself so far out on the wings.
You’re not alone. I like her and admire her. I also - God help me - slightly fancy her
First time I met her Tony Newton, our ex-MP, was walking through a local fete and I thought 'what's he doing with that attractive Asian girl?' Quite a few years ago now, of course.
She is genuinely attractive. Phenomenal cheekbones
Quite broad in the beam, but one can, er, overlook that
Smart and wise though..
Whatever it is she doesn't deserve the unpopularity.
Well, she annoys lefties because she's very authoritarian. And she annoys righties because she's done a very poor job with migrant border crossings.
While in her previous role, she travelled to Israel, had a bunch of work meetings. Then lied about it to the Prime Minister. Was forgiven. More revelations came out. She then lied again. And after being lied to a second time, the Prime Minister was less forgiving.
She has a great personal backstory, is attractive and articulate. She's clearly not stupid.
But I'm not convinced she would be a great PM.
Someone else who has a problem with the truth may not be a good replacement. I don't like her, but she would still be an improvement, but then the bar is so low.
Honestly, if Patel became PM, I'd join the SNP the same day.
Everybody agrees with you. It's just me that doesn't understand why.
I read your comment earlier and tried to see it from your point of view. I just can't manage it. I don't think she has anything redeeming about her. I wouldn't even say that about Corbyn or Boris. She might be the worst person in the world.
I don't get the why of this.
I find myself unable to explain, which is why I didn't reply to your original post. It's a visceral and wordless hate. I can normally articulate what I like or dislike about someone, but with Patel all I get is the words "SMIRKING GHOUL" and there it stops.
My guess is: her alleged support of the Death Penalty
It makes liberals get shingles in horror
Nothing alleged about it.
The thing that scares me was the fact she believed nobody innocent is ever convicted.
That wasn't the problem, it was that she said 'well, if they're later discovered to be innocent they can be pardoned then'.
Which is fine, except by that time the person would be dead/
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
When looking at a reform it's relevant where else it has been done and with what impact. People are saying self-Id is a perverts charter and an attack on women's rights, yet several countries have adopted self-Id and it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights. Germany is about to join these countries. When the UK government looked at this in 2018 they concluded that self-Id was a positive reform - because it would help this minority and harm nobody else. The Women & Equalities Committee of the HoC has recently re-endorsed this in their report of Dec 21. There are some solid arguments for this reform. People who are interested should take a look at them.
Do you have any links to studies from these countries evidencing that "it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights"? For example, that attacks on female prisoners have not increased since the change was made?
Seems there is lot of silliness on trans rights on these boards just as there is from self indulgent commentators in the Times and the Observer. Tom Harwood on GB news has far more sensible views on trans rights and has pointed out that prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis.
Germany seems a lot better on trans rights and there is no controversy in their gvt about it.
I don't think people like Rosie Duffield and cyclefree understand the equality act and if they do they want to repeal parts of it.
The debate on this in the UK is very heated cf other countries. Not completely sure why. The proposal in the HoC committee report on gender recognition is self-Id with controls for certain areas. The objective is to help transgender people without compromising the rights or safety of women. I think the case for it is strong.
Introducing #AlphaCode: a system that can compete at average human level in competitive coding competitions like @codeforces . An exciting leap in AI problem-solving capabilities, combining many advances in machine learning!
I used to find Ed Balls unaccountably irritating. And had a much stronger reaction to Corbyn to most politicians, to the point I felt my stance required me to vote Tory in 2017.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
It is often the case that people you loathe from a distance turn out to be completely different when you meet them. The loathing disappears and you suddenly appreciate that this is a human being of warmth, wit and charm. You realise how wrong you have been all along and gladly acknowledge it.
I shared your dislike of Ed Balls from a distance, however irrational it may have been. Then one day I got to meet him and found to my astonishment that the real person was even more loathsome, charmless and lacking in human warmth than I had ever previously imagined.
I detested Balls when he was Brown's attack dog, but find him much warmer now he's out of politics. Not met him in person though, so he may be very different.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
When it is known not to work? Yes, I would say so.
It's a terrible comment to make. We needed that PPE. We paid the going price for it. The idea that £4.3 billion was given to fraudsters is a far worse lie than anything about Johnson's parties.
I guess people like you would have preferred us not to get the PPE, so you could then scream and shout about the government's failure to get it?
The £4.3 billion to fraudsters is about the write off for BBL by Sunak.
The write down for price gouged PPE is a separate issue. I don't see why there has not been a thorough audit of the decision process for those contracts to see who profited. It seems the Tories are no longer interested in value for taxpayers money
One hopes it is addressed in the inquiry(ies). But it probably will be glossed over. I think its both fair to say that we were desperate for PPE at the time and messed up some of the procurement. The former doesn't really excuse the latter and we should be making strenuous efforts to get our money back where possible.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Someone selling something above market price is a fraudster?
When it is known not to work? Yes, I would say so.
It's a terrible comment to make. We needed that PPE. We paid the going price for it. The idea that £4.3 billion was given to fraudsters is a far worse lie than anything about Johnson's parties.
I guess people like you would have preferred us not to get the PPE, so you could then scream and shout about the government's failure to get it?
The £4.3 billion to fraudsters is about the write off for BBL by Sunak.
The write down for price gouged PPE is a separate issue. I don't see why there has not been a thorough audit of the decision process for those contracts to see who profited. It seems the Tories are no longer interested in value for taxpayers money
One hopes it is addressed in the inquiry(ies). But it probably will be glossed over. I think its both fair to say that we were desperate for PPE at the time and messed up some of the procurement. The former doesn't really excuse the latter and we should be making strenuous efforts to get our money back where possible.
I fully expect the inquiry to be limited to "why didn't we lock down harder and sooner?"
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Photos. We need photos!
It's not as exciting as your office
It is to me
Lots of memories of first class trips to London and of course a lifetime love of all things trains
Never been first class on a train. Something to look forward to!
Look, there’s my weird bar snack on the left. Cheers
Stuff like this makes me appreciate the miracle of the internet. 200 years ago if I wanted to tell you all about the snack I was having I would have had to write you all individual letters with a goose quill, describing my snack with words, then put the sealed letters on a tea clipper bound for England and you’d only have learned about my snack maybe a year later as the letters slowly made their way across the island of Britain in carriages to your various hovels and mansions. Now I can just do this:
This is what the internet was FOR, all along
My office today is the 10am London to Aberdeen train, where two sets of train crew are keeping me plied with drinks and food. Have read loads of negatives about these new trains but they're a very comfy place to while away the hours in first class.
Photos. We need photos!
It's not as exciting as your office
It is to me
Lots of memories of first class trips to London and of course a lifetime love of all things trains
Never been first class on a train. Something to look forward to!
Doesn't cost hugely extra if you book in advance, and if you are on the ECML services from Kings X the main intercity services give or at least gave you tea, coffee, meals etc. ad lib - but DYOR as this (a) depends on the covid situation and (b) depends how long/where/when you are travelling. Mrs C used to make a regular work journey to NE England - went early for breakfast on the train before hopping off for the local at Newcastle.
Stayed in cabinet when everyone else knew the government and leader was in the wrong and that the only moral course was to say so and resign (was the Savile slur the last new excuse giving clear grounds to do this?)
The billions of payments to fraudulent bogus companies which a nine year old would have spotted coming down the tracks
A lot of that is the fault of the banks who processed the loans and did no work at all to check who got what. 1 obvious starting point that could be done is refusing to refund loans made to companies that were created after Covid appeared
This is another example of where the blame lies 100% with the bank giving the same director multiple loans
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
When looking at a reform it's relevant where else it has been done and with what impact. People are saying self-Id is a perverts charter and an attack on women's rights, yet several countries have adopted self-Id and it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights. Germany is about to join these countries. When the UK government looked at this in 2018 they concluded that self-Id was a positive reform - because it would help this minority and harm nobody else. The Women & Equalities Committee of the HoC has recently re-endorsed this in their report of Dec 21. There are some solid arguments for this reform. People who are interested should take a look at them.
Do you have any links to studies from these countries evidencing that "it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights"? For example, that attacks on female prisoners have not increased since the change was made?
Seems there is lot of silliness on trans rights on these boards just as there is from self indulgent commentators in the Times and the Observer. Tom Harwood on GB news has far more sensible views on trans rights and has pointed out that prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis.
Germany seems a lot better on trans rights and there is no controversy in their gvt about it.
I don't think people like Rosie Duffield and cyclefree understand the equality act and if they do they want to repeal parts of it.
The debate on this in the UK is very heated cf other countries. Not completely sure why. The proposal in the HoC committee report on gender recognition is self-Id with controls for certain areas. The objective is to help transgender people without compromising the rights or safety of women. I think the case for it is strong.
Yes, reading the Women and Equalities Committee report, it is clear that people with a GRC can legitimately be excluded from single sex spaces after Self ID. (Reference 255)
Stayed in cabinet when everyone else knew the government and leader was in the wrong and that the only moral course was to say so and resign (was the Savile slur the last new excuse giving clear grounds to do this?)
The billions of payments to fraudulent bogus companies which a nine year old would have spotted coming down the tracks
A lot of that is the fault of the banks who processed the loans and did no work at all to check who got what. 1 obvious starting point that could be done is refusing to refund loans made to companies that were created after Covid appeared
This is another example of where the blame lies 100% with the bank giving the same director multiple loans
Athens to Rome late on a winter afternoon: harsh golden horizontal sun on the gulfs of Corinth and Patras and the Antirrio bridge, then over the Ionian islands and up the instep of Italy with the Puglian coast to the right before crossing Basilicata and rounding Vesuvius at dusk. Spectacular enough to watch the whole flight without opening a book once.
Yes, or Milan-Athens as well, the views over the Croatian Adriatic are stunning, Equally the landing into Ljubljana on a clear day is absolutely spectacular (but pretty scary in bad weather)
Love a good scoot along the Adriatic. The approach into BCN is usually great too, over the Med but parallel with the coastline. You can pick out the well-known streets, Torre Agbar, Sagrada etc. really nicely. Once did a go-around ("bit of traffic on the runway there" said the ice-cool pilot) and did a lovely air tour of the Eixample for a second crack.
I flew Ljubljana - Heathrow one time on 5 November, on a night of League Cup action. Fireworks going off below us, great cruise along the Thames, and saw three or four matches from the air, including Brentford missing a penalty.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
Whilst in the right direction, why is it released hours after the Home Secs briefing against her and when the met is investigating a political opponent. Bad timing if at least finally someone taking notice.
I used to find Ed Balls unaccountably irritating. And had a much stronger reaction to Corbyn to most politicians, to the point I felt my stance required me to vote Tory in 2017.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
It is often the case that people you loathe from a distance turn out to be completely different when you meet them. The loathing disappears and you suddenly appreciate that this is a human being of warmth, wit and charm. You realise how wrong you have been all along and gladly acknowledge it.
I shared your dislike of Ed Balls from a distance, however irrational it may have been. Then one day I got to meet him and found to my astonishment that the real person was even more loathsome, charmless and lacking in human warmth than I had ever previously imagined.
I detested Balls when he was Brown's attack dog, but find him much warmer now he's out of politics. Not met him in person though, so he may be very different.
Rather like the previous Balls anecdote, I used to think Bill Cash was an old out of touch windbag. Then I had the pleasure of an hour in his commons office being regaled on the historic importance of Brexit, and realised that not only was he an old out of touch windbag, but one able to sustain a monologue without appearing to draw breath for well over 40 minutes.
Stayed in cabinet when everyone else knew the government and leader was in the wrong and that the only moral course was to say so and resign (was the Savile slur the last new excuse giving clear grounds to do this?)
The billions of payments to fraudulent bogus companies which a nine year old would have spotted coming down the tracks
A lot of that is the fault of the banks who processed the loans and did no work at all to check who got what. 1 obvious starting point that could be done is refusing to refund loans made to companies that were created after Covid appeared
This is another example of where the blame lies 100% with the bank giving the same director multiple loans
But the government giving the banks a 100% guarantee on the loans didn't give the banks any incentive to do otherwise.
It is noticeable that the frauds were mostly in 3 banks though, suggesting that some did diligence better than others.
Santander limited applications to existing business customers for example, as they didn't think they could check applications otherwise. Seems a fairly minimal basic precaution and didn't cause delay. I got my BBL authorised within a day.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
A splendid example of the "I am an antisemite but I will defend to the death your right to express non-antisemitic views" school of thought, and a true gent.
Christ I'm sick of dickless puffbuttocks putting people on notice: Hoyle to mps, mps to Johnson, Khan to Dick. Just actually bloody do something already.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
A splendid example of the "I am an antisemite but I will defend to the death your right to express non-antisemitic views" school of thought, and a true gent.
But not it seemed with eg Luciana Berger and others...
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
Corbyn was anti-Israel rather than anti-Jewish. The definition of antisemitism changed to include the former as well as the latter. Some of the old trots in, say, Liverpool, were classically (and casually) antisemitic.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
When looking at a reform it's relevant where else it has been done and with what impact. People are saying self-Id is a perverts charter and an attack on women's rights, yet several countries have adopted self-Id and it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights. Germany is about to join these countries. When the UK government looked at this in 2018 they concluded that self-Id was a positive reform - because it would help this minority and harm nobody else. The Women & Equalities Committee of the HoC has recently re-endorsed this in their report of Dec 21. There are some solid arguments for this reform. People who are interested should take a look at them.
Do you have any links to studies from these countries evidencing that "it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights"? For example, that attacks on female prisoners have not increased since the change was made?
Seems there is lot of silliness on trans rights on these boards just as there is from self indulgent commentators in the Times and the Observer. Tom Harwood on GB news has far more sensible views on trans rights and has pointed out that prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis.
Germany seems a lot better on trans rights and there is no controversy in their gvt about it.
I don't think people like Rosie Duffield and cyclefree understand the equality act and if they do they want to repeal parts of it.
The debate on this in the UK is very heated cf other countries. Not completely sure why. The proposal in the HoC committee report on gender recognition is self-Id with controls for certain areas. The objective is to help transgender people without compromising the rights or safety of women. I think the case for it is strong.
Because the English are such shits. Your final sentence sounds so reasonable nobody could possibly object to it, but it cashes out as Ian Huntley considering transitioning a year or two ago, and a bunch of dickless "activists" screeching transphobe at me for having the bad taste to mention the fact.
Does anyone remember, last time when the threshold was reached, how many had gone public?
No, but if wiki is to be believed either the trickle became a flood, or most had kept schtum. Keep any eye out for a paragon of leadership.
By 11 December, the public count was still at twenty-six letters from MPs. That day, however, Owen Paterson publicly sent his letter and it later became clear that forty-eight letters had been submitted
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
Corbyn was anti-Israel rather than anti-Jewish. The definition of antisemitism changed to include the former as well as the latter. Some of the old trots in, say, Liverpool, were classically (and casually) antisemitic.
I'm afraid that's just not true. "I'm an anti-zionist" has been code for "I'm an anti-semite" for decades.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
Corbyn was anti-Israel rather than anti-Jewish. The definition of antisemitism changed to include the former as well as the latter. Some of the old trots in, say, Liverpool, were classically (and casually) antisemitic.
No, boringly untrue. He disseminated drawings which were Wannsee conference level antisemitic.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
The answer to that, surely, is for Labour to have sensible policies on such issues which don't enrage people so that the Tory party's attempt at culture wars don't work.
It is possible to have such policies. I have suggested some. I dare say I could suggest more. But if you do Labour accuse you of some terrible thought crime or ostracise you or refuse to listen.
Take one example today - it is a year to the day since the death of Maureen Colquhoun, the first openly lesbian Labour MP. She was not treated well by Labour. A Labour group wanted to have some gathering in her memory and invited as a speaker her biographer and personal friend. Then disinvited her because this person thinks the GRA is just fine as it is. So the event is not now going ahead. When Labour behaves in this way to women - when it refuses to debate or listen, when it takes the view that there can only be one view on a topic which is of interest to lots of women for perfectly rational, evidence-based reasons (yes @kinabalu there are plenty even though you choose to ignore them) then it is not the Tories who are doing the enraging but Labour.
Womens' rights matter to me / the rights of children not to be abused / safeguarding and a decent police force one can trust matter to me - as my header today (and plenty more on these topics) would show. But I do not trust Labour on them. So .... they know what they have to do if they want my vote.
Where are Labour's views on police reforms, for instance? Why have the Mayor of London and the Opposition Leader supported the Met Commissioner despite all the evidence against her? Why should I believe that Labour will be any better on this or on child sex abuse etc?
Unfair and a bit of a misrepresentation. On here we tend to get this debate presented as if all the rational, evidence-led argument is on the side of those opposed to trans self-Id and inclusion. I try to correct that by posting the rational, evidence-led argument in favour. Which is considerable.
The one thing you haven't done is posted the rational evidence-led argument in favour. And when I have challenged you on certain consequences of your preference, you have agreed with me eg in relation to being against women being forced to name rapists as women even in a trial, even though this would be the inevitable consequence of self-ID.
And you stated yesterday something that is patently untrue - namely that trans activists do not want to erase womens' rights. I pointed out that it was the publicly stated position of trans lobby groups to remove all reference to sex in equalities legislation and to all sex-based exemptions in the Equality Act. This would remove womens' current rights. I also asked you how women would be able to take action against discrimination on the grounds of sex under the Equal Pay Act if sex was no longer a relevant category. What sort of comparator would be used and how?
So it seems to me that you do not fully understand the consequences of what you propose.
For the record, I am not opposed in the slightest to the existing rights trans people (ie those with gender dysphoria have) - those legal rights are exactly the same as everyone else has - nor do I wish to take any away. What I do oppose is the campaigns to remove womens' rights both in law and in practice. You would do well to understand how self-ID does impact on those rights and why women are concerned.
I've posted the report from the relevant House of Commons Committee which after taking evidence from all sides recommends self-Id as the way forward. I've also pointed out that this confirms the conclusions of the UK government when it looked into this previously in 2018. I've further pointed out that several countries have adopted this approach (and have no plans to reverse it) and that Germany is about to. Like it or not these are solid points. I've also sought to explain at length why imo it is illogical (and tbh rather noxious) to present self-Id as being a 'perverts charter'.
I did *not* in my post yesterday opine on what 'trans activists' do or don't want to do. What I said was that the pro trans argument isn't 100% owned by a collection of foaming twitter activists hellbent on trampling all over women's rights. Eg I'm not a trans activist (as if!) but I recognize the strength of the case for self-Id. This doesn't mean I wish to obliterate all reference to sex in the laws of the country or to abolish the whole concept of birth sex in favour of gender. Others may argue for this but that's a matter for them. It certainly doesn't follow automatically from having a less burdensome, de-medicalized gender transition process based predominantly on self-Id.
'Those other people are doing it and recommending it' isn't actually an argument in its favour is it? It's the same argument lemmings use when charging over a cliff. If you agree with it, you can surely find a single convincing argument for it other than pointing at the German Government.
When looking at a reform it's relevant where else it has been done and with what impact. People are saying self-Id is a perverts charter and an attack on women's rights, yet several countries have adopted self-Id and it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights. Germany is about to join these countries. When the UK government looked at this in 2018 they concluded that self-Id was a positive reform - because it would help this minority and harm nobody else. The Women & Equalities Committee of the HoC has recently re-endorsed this in their report of Dec 21. There are some solid arguments for this reform. People who are interested should take a look at them.
Do you have any links to studies from these countries evidencing that "it hasn't been a perverts charter or caused a regression in women's rights"? For example, that attacks on female prisoners have not increased since the change was made?
Seems there is lot of silliness on trans rights on these boards just as there is from self indulgent commentators in the Times and the Observer. Tom Harwood on GB news has far more sensible views on trans rights and has pointed out that prisoners are already assessed on an individual basis.
Germany seems a lot better on trans rights and there is no controversy in their gvt about it.
I don't think people like Rosie Duffield and cyclefree understand the equality act and if they do they want to repeal parts of it.
The debate on this in the UK is very heated cf other countries. Not completely sure why. The proposal in the HoC committee report on gender recognition is self-Id with controls for certain areas. The objective is to help transgender people without compromising the rights or safety of women. I think the case for it is strong.
Because the English are such shits. Your final sentence sounds so reasonable nobody could possibly object to it, but it cashes out as Ian Huntley considering transitioning a year or two ago, and a bunch of dickless "activists" screeching transphobe at me for having the bad taste to mention the fact.
Though as the proposal makes clear a GRC does not prevent exclusion from single sex spaces under the equality act. See my reference below.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
Absolutely. Oh and plus as well as the "polite argument will always win" misconception he was a vile anti-semite.
But yes nice guy all round.
Corbyn was anti-Israel rather than anti-Jewish. The definition of antisemitism changed to include the former as well as the latter. Some of the old trots in, say, Liverpool, were classically (and casually) antisemitic.
He was absolutely anti-Israel (itself a Jewish state) but allowed himself to become both for example the mural which showed to me that for all his some of my best friends are Jews schtick, he would enthusiastically endorse "classical" anti-semitic tropes. Plus the present but not involved thing.
The way I always saw Jezza issues with Jews / Israel is that a) he is very dense and b) he has this very simple world view, oppressers vs oppressed. Oppressors are the rich, the powerful and oppressed bad behaviour can be excused away because of not as bad as the opposers long history. From this a) Israel bad / Hamas can be excused and b) falls for the rich powerful Jews trope and does see it as wider anti-Jewish / antisemitism.
I hesitate to comment on the trans thing but as posited to @Cyclefree earlier (I think she had gone out to tend her garden by then) it could also be that we are transitioning (geddit) from our hitherto widespread views of what a "woman" is.
Sounds bonkers, right. Until one looks at the way social norms have evolved over the years. As ever with societal change of this type there will be an overshoot before we settle down into something that is "advanced" (as in changed) from the status quo ante but is not as "extreme" as, say, the Huntley example.
Thuggish and incompetent politicians with a polished veneer that enables them to get away with it annoy me.
Boris JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
Yes, as a Corbyn fan I think that's fair. He had also drunk the "polite argument will always win" Kool-Aid to an extent which was suicidal in a leading politician, which as you say prevented him from cracking down on loony supporters, and also gave free rein to irreconcilable opponents. His more ruthless supporters would cheerfully have long since deselected many of the MPs who by 2019 were openly hostile to Labour because he was leading the party, but he was just as stubborn in his refusal to encourage deselections as he was in his political views. It was an odd combination of personal rigidity and tolerance of others.
John Major used polite argument and won the 1992 general election. Something to look back fondly on, even if one disagreed with his policies.
Comments
She’s a small, smirking, not-posh Asian woman with right wing beliefs. She fails you, racially. She should be Left
JRM - precision engineered to trigger me
Osborne - unbearably smug sneering face
Leadsome - reminds me of my grandma's horrible right wing friends
Corbyn - pedantic and unimaginative (although fair play to him in 2017, that exit poll means I can't hate him completely).
Timing is everything. It is too late for a significant government figure suddenly to find their Damascus road experience. Several million voters got there before him. If you didn't twig with the Savile slur after everything else, you don't get it.
Some people seemed to find Cox's bombast very irritating.
Michael Gove vs Lisa Nandy on the levelling up white paper is a serious tour de force. Labour finally found the right person to attempt its fightback in the red wall.
https://twitter.com/sebastianepayne/status/1488890095679811588?s=21
As she says,
"They've given more to Covid fraudsters (£4.3bn) than they've given to the North of England"
Though none of this is true of Nandy or Hoyle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-60236169
Talk about ruff!
BTW, can anyone remember Neville Chamberlain's "National" government HoC majority on May Day 1940?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60234377
Angela Leadsom to believe she was leadership material (etc etc)
In every other respect, I dislike her hugely.
Anyway, you get the picture.
I guess people like you would have preferred us not to get the PPE, so you could then scream and shout about the government's failure to get it?
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1488933504452755456
Which is fine, except by that time the person would be dead/
Boris
JRM
Egotistical halo polishers that cannot see the negative consequences of their actions and treat people badly in the process of doing their great work are not far behind.
Some on the hard left really qualify here.
Not Corbyn who whilst rarely saw the whole picture himself and was blinded by his halo ego, personally appeared to treat people well. His problem was that he was naive, closed minded and needed be tougher on those closest to him that let him down. Annoying, but in a different way.
I shared your dislike of Ed Balls from a distance, however irrational it may have been. Then one day I got to meet him and found to my astonishment that the real person was even more loathsome, charmless and lacking in human warmth than I had ever previously imagined.
The write down for price gouged PPE is a separate issue. I don't see why there has not been a thorough audit of the decision process for those contracts to see who profited. It seems the Tories are no longer interested in value for taxpayers money
Introducing #AlphaCode: a system that can compete at average human level in competitive coding competitions like
@codeforces
. An exciting leap in AI problem-solving capabilities, combining many advances in machine learning!
https://twitter.com/DeepMind/status/1488907829276725252?s=20&t=EGPC2cld5eTjDbgkmTK9Hw
UPDATE: Cressida Dick "put on notice" by Sadiq Khan in meeting over "sickening" officers' messages.
Source says Dick must show she can improve culture or "the Mayor will have to consider whether she is the right person to lead".
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1488940324361748486
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dKQnAE3y-aQ--tgHvKEdKg9jyG-zwEsilRqgEFNbCt8/htmlview?pru=AAABft-LXPg*cKhvTXYBsg6AYtZV4xDJvQ#gid=0
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/977/report.html
Though it would need to be reasonable and proportionate, and suggests that the guidance should include case studies to illustrate when this might be.
I flew Ljubljana - Heathrow one time on 5 November, on a night of League Cup action. Fireworks going off below us, great cruise along the Thames, and saw three or four matches from the air, including Brentford missing a penalty.
MP
Boris Johnson
Party
CON
Constituency
Uxbridge & South Ruislip
Letter Sent?
No
Source Link
It's literally him.
But yes nice guy all round.
Santander limited applications to existing business customers for example, as they didn't think they could check applications otherwise. Seems a fairly minimal basic precaution and didn't cause delay. I got my BBL authorised within a day.
The relationship was discovered during an investigation into the conduct of fired CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.
Does anyone remember, last time when the threshold was reached, how many had gone public?
Denmark lifted them last week.
So the BBC and STV put out pro-SNP propaganda? Remarkable if true.
Confirmed + Suspected 74.3% (of 54 letters)
By 11 December, the public count was still at twenty-six letters from MPs. That day, however, Owen Paterson publicly sent his letter and it later became clear that forty-eight letters had been submitted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Conservative_Party_leadership_election#12_December_confidence_vote
Even so, that was a lot more publicly known for May - because it was about something more cared about, policy.
Sounds bonkers, right. Until one looks at the way social norms have evolved over the years. As ever with societal change of this type there will be an overshoot before we settle down into something that is "advanced" (as in changed) from the status quo ante but is not as "extreme" as, say, the Huntley example.