To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Technically nothing, since you always have the right not to be “unlawfully” discriminated against for any reason. Where the law actually applies will vary though.
Boris - " And I pressed my finger on the red button for Russia and boom ... the next oligarch was on the phone quicker than you could say Tory donor."
"I had these IT lessons, from a girl. Youngish. Similar to you, but blonde. Nice girl. Lovely flat. Anyway, I was told if I pressed crt-z the screen would go blank, or copy something, or... I don't know. I can't remember.
Do you offer IT lessons?"
I have to admit I saw a tweet from him about meeting with a number of Ukrainian MPs, and couldn't help but think Ukraine had been smart, as at least 2 were attractive women.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
You tell us? It’s going to be something to do with trans people though isn’t it - I can feel it.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Brevity. A full stop after ‘services’ would have done it. Actually, if it’s unlawful, it shouldn’t need to be stated in the constitution at all. It’s redundant.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
A brief answer for a Saturday evening - someone is virtue signalling before engaging brain to think a little more deeply.
Sex is missing. Has anything been added?
And because of the Equality Act laundry list, they are not fully and fairly informing individuals of their legal rights, as it arguably implies that S (me not having read the Act recently but iirc it is there) does not give the same rights as a defining characteristic. I think this may, itself, be an act of discrimination.
It is also probably an act of confusion.
It should also be Religion or Belief, rather than "religion, belief". Not sure if that is relevant, however.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Sounds like some kind of corporate algorithm thing then.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
We might need to see the full context. Contrasting how we can just pop down the polling station and change our nation's direction, the Ukrainians try that and have to face a Russian invasion.
The full context appears to include the war on woke.
I really think Tory strategists try too hard on the war on woke stuff. It comes across as distraction, when all they would need to do is highlight some of the more extreme and ridiculous instances of people quibbling about pronouns or cancelling things etc, and I think the general public can and does apply common sense on the ridiculous element. The Tories don't need to fan that fire, and the extent they do can undermine it by turning what for many public might be just a common sense issue, into a political one which will push people to take a partisan side instead.
Disagree
Most people are sensible about politics and therefore WAAAAAAY less well-informed than us geeks. And, as we see, many of the geeks on here don't understand Woke, or don't want to understand it, some refuse to believe it exists (which is actually understandable, in a way, because elements of it are so truly bizarre. It's a bit like the Victorians who refused to believe the first descriptions of a duck billed platypus)
Therefore if you want to raise awareness and get people as angry as they should be, you have to be pretty damn brutal and heavy handed. The Republicans have shown that waging the Culture Wars can win elections, if you go in hard enough. They won Virginia thereby
Someone should ask Starmer if a rape took place in that hospital. Because of his Wokeness, he won't be able to answer coherently. A well timed bomb like that could, by itself, win the GE for the Tories, by turning millions of despairing women away from Labour
Starmer is a reasonable guy, but his party membership is batshit insane and Starmer needs them. So the Tories should force him to answer questions that divides the public from the Labour activists.
- Was there a rape at this hospital? - Will you take off the income threshold for immigration? - Do you believe Diane Abbott's past comments are racist?
I do wish people would stop talking horseshit.
WTF do the likes of you or fruity Leon or any of the umpteen clueless reactionary dingbats on here know about our party's membership or about racism or about transgender people.
Fuck all. Absolutely sweet fuck all. C'mon. Seriously.
Feel a Covid relapse coming on now. Thanks a bunch.
If you were less narrowminded, incurious and intellectually middlebrow, you'd realise we are talking sense, and that, if you actually listened to us, Labour would benefit. This is a real issue and it is now getting real traction
It has generated more comments than any other story in the paper today, and they are still coming. And most of them are incensed and angry, and shouting at the Lefty Woke people. ie Labour. Most of them are women
Woke is finally emerging into the daylight of public awareness, via stories like this. There is much danger here for The UK Left, just see what is happening to the Dems in America
I look forward to 'NHS scandals under the Tories' being pushed as a reason to re-elect the Tories.
Along with 'don't vote for ex-DPP Sir Keir Sanity Starmer cos he's a crazy wokie'.
It'll be quite the campaign.
Would that be the same as this Keir "Sanity" Starmer? -
Keir Starmer: "It's wrong to say 'only women have a cervix"
Oh FFS! Not this again. One more time - please bookmark.
There are thousands of people in this country born female who have legally transitioned to male. Legally transitioned. They've been through the process and have the certificate. The GRC. The Gender Recognition Certificate. They are therefore legally male. They are men in the eyes of the law. Adults of the male gender. This is the whole point of the gender transition process!
But they will have a cervix. Therefore it IS wrong to say only women have a cervix. Not as in evil or bigoted, but just simply incorrect. So Starmer's statement is fine. It's absolutely nothing to get worked up about.
Yes?
Reality trumps the law. If Parliament passed a statute saying that the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth would continue to orbit the Sun.
Likewise, a GRC does not make a male person female or vice versa. Treating trans people with respect and humanity does not require that we pretend as much.
Why does no one ever want to compromise on this? I do not believe trans women are women or trans men are men and I never will. However I also don’t want to be rude or offensive to them, and if they wish to present themselves that way then all power to them. I won’t attack them and I’ll protect them from those who do.
However it really matters that we also protect vulnerable people from any such attitude allowing for them to be assaulted, as with this rape case. It sounds to me from those who know more about it than me that the law is mostly there but we should sharpen the guidance, investigate the issues, and act against anyone who had failed in their duty.
Beyond that, can’t we all just get along? It doesn’t harm me if someone wants to “identify” as another gender and it doesn’t harm them if I think that’s not real so long as I’m not bullying them.
A 2015 study showed that trans women are far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than they are to commit sexual assault. 37% of trans women are likely to be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, while 40% have been physically assaulted.
A more recent study, in 2021, showed that there are 86.1 assaults per 1000 transgender women vs 23.7 assaults per 1000 women born in that gender.
Trans people are much more likely to require our protection from assault, than to be perpetrators of assaults themselves.
I agree. And that doesn’t contradict anything I said above.
I'm not making light of this issue, but it is a measure of its hideous complexity that I don't actually know - for sure - what a "trans woman" is
Is it a person born a man who now legally identifies as a woman? So then, surely, she is just a "woman", at least in Woke terms? Or is it a person born a man in the surgical/social act of transitioning?
Or is it a woman who WANTS to transition to being a man? Or what?
This is not facetious. This whole argument has become so fucking stupid everything is unclear
I don't think this complex.
Some people have gender reassignment surgery, and go through horrendous hormone treatments, and no particular threat to people of their new sex. These people get to take on their new sex, and if you wish to call them transgender you can.
If you have not gone through this process (but are on the path), then you get to call yourself 'transitioning'. They do not get access to safe spaces for their non-birth gender - such as prisons, bathrooms, changing rooms, or the like.
I would suggest that we encourage a small number of bathrooms, etc., as private spaces where those who have modesty issues or are transitioning and feel uncomfortable can use.
Problem solved.
Quite.
That, plus reserve womens sport for birth women, and beef up safeguards to ensure the young don't do anything really, really irreversible until they are really, really sure about it, and problem 100% solved.
Completely agree with you both. Should be dead easy, then you apply the basic “don’t be a dick about it” rule.
A rather underrated rule I feel. Mitigates many a potential problem.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Sounds like some kind of corporate algorithm thing then.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Sounds like some kind of corporate algorithm thing then.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Ditto. Although this was a late night Deliveroo order from a petrol station. But you would hope a supermarket had procedures, and training. Perhaps to a non-drinking employee even white and red are just wine.
I ordered an aubergine from Waitrose. They substituted snap peas. Anyone ever tried to make moussaka with snap peas?
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
Tesco Cotes du Rhone Villages, preceded by Barra gin and Fevertree
A rubbish white wine that Sainsburys replaced my red wine order with. I mean who picks the stuff at Sainsbury's? We haven't got the red wine he wanted so we will replace with white?
First world problem obs.
We had the same and thought it bizarre.
Sounds like some kind of corporate algorithm thing then.
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
In fact it will be as all of them are (switch around depending on who is in power).
Labour: It's time for a change. Tories: You cannot risk a change right now. LDs: Someone listen to us! SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are) NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups. Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties. Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
In fact it will be as all of them are (switch around depending on who is in power).
Labour: It's time for a change. Tories: You cannot risk a change right now. LDs: Someone listen to us! SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are) NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups. Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties. Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
Hah! Yes, except surely the Tories would be a three word slogan? “No change needed”.
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
In fact it will be as all of them are (switch around depending on who is in power).
Labour: It's time for a change. Tories: You cannot risk a change right now. LDs: Someone listen to us! SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are) NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups. Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties. Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
Hah! Yes, except surely the Tories would be a three word slogan? “No change needed”.
Probably, but I was assuming they might not be able to suggest things were hunky dory, so would need to explain why even though things were not great things should not change.
I recall Brown trying to suggest a time of crisis was no time for a change to those without experience, which was a good variation, as it would mean you should never change government - if things were going well why make a change, and if things were going badly you need experienced people.
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
In fact it will be as all of them are (switch around depending on who is in power).
Labour: It's time for a change. Tories: You cannot risk a change right now. LDs: Someone listen to us! SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are) NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups. Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties. Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
Hah! Yes, except surely the Tories would be a three word slogan? “No change needed”.
Probably, but I was assuming they might not be able to suggest things were hunky dory, so would need to explain why even though things were not great things should not change.
I recall Brown trying to suggest a time of crisis was no time for a change to those without experience, which was a good variation, as it would mean you should never change government - if things were going well why make a change, and if things were going badly you need experienced people.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside,
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside,
I suspect the EU refused to invite him to the EuCo meeting next week, so he needed to preempt the orchestrated derision about Brexit Britain being isolated.
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
In fact it will be as all of them are (switch around depending on who is in power).
Labour: It's time for a change. Tories: You cannot risk a change right now. LDs: Someone listen to us! SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are) NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups. Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties. Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
Hah! Yes, except surely the Tories would be a three word slogan? “No change needed”.
Probably, but I was assuming they might not be able to suggest things were hunky dory, so would need to explain why even though things were not great things should not change.
I recall Brown trying to suggest a time of crisis was no time for a change to those without experience, which was a good variation, as it would mean you should never change government - if things were going well why make a change, and if things were going badly you need experienced people.
It's a tricky sell.
Major managed it in '92, of course, but it was a close-run thing, and Major's pitch had been heavily refreshed from late Thatcher. It's really hard to see Bozza pulling the same trick again.
So, assuming that he can't say "life is better under Johnson", his options are "stick with nurse" (for fear of worse) or "woke under the bed", neither of which looks edifying.
Not uninteresting on the tactics by which a party might win the next election. If Rentoul is right it will not relate in the tiniest degree to actual policies, plans or efforts to solve actual problems.
In the long run the second question is more interesting.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve?
Keeping the Brexiteers on side. They grumble very easily and Boris probably fears the return of the Farage, so will pepper the word in wherever he can.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
If Putin is feeling depressed, not a positive development if at all as reported by the Mail's 'sources' , a silver lining is that the utter buffoonery and idiocy of this might cheer him up for a bit and remind him of the success of Brexit. Much of the credit that Johnson has built up with western and eastern europeans ridiculously frittered away, and Alexander Dugin's longstanding goal of European disunity and incoherence revived once again.
Not uninteresting on the tactics by which a party might win the next election. If Rentoul is right it will not relate in the tiniest degree to actual policies, plans or efforts to solve actual problems.
In the long run the second question is more interesting.
I'm playing scrabble with Midge Ure, I've only got four letters left, but they mean nothing to me.
Is Midge
a) Scottish? b) Anyone of whom I should have heard?
On your question.
Are websites applicable? I am sure there is a telecomms one called VONR .
Or if you can find an E on the board, ROVEN is available.
(Roven is the past tense for reeve, which is a nautical term for passing a rope through a hole or ring.)
Midge Ure is Scottish and you should have heard about him.
The wife has had him.....before me, obs.
That post could only be more gross of accompanied by a candid photo
Not an invitation btw
ETA can't remember where I read about the elderly aristo in the late c19th who proudly introduced his elderly wife as derniere maitresse de milord Byron
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
He's told the activists what they want to hear. As have his ministers.
And until 2024, they are the only ones that matter. The electorate as a whole can go hang.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Yes. It is a statement that it will not act unlawfully. It's as interesting as my pledge when entering a local supermarket not to murder an assistant, set fire to the building or steal the whisky. It's redundant.
A pledge to do all they can to heal diseases in a timely manner would be a help.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Not uninteresting on the tactics by which a party might win the next election. If Rentoul is right it will not relate in the tiniest degree to actual policies, plans or efforts to solve actual problems.
In the long run the second question is more interesting.
Second question?
What are the actual policies and plans, and how do they differ, and how are they funded.
Not uninteresting on the tactics by which a party might win the next election. If Rentoul is right it will not relate in the tiniest degree to actual policies, plans or efforts to solve actual problems.
In the long run the second question is more interesting.
Second question?
What are the actual policies and plans, and how do they differ, and how are they funded.
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
In the link I quoted 676 billion or 27 billion a year for 25 years
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
Certainly the strategy of sending in the tanks is going to need some rethinking.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
To me everything has changed and how each party faces the huge problems going forward will decide GE24
I do expect problems for labour and the SNP if they object to the development of oil and gas fields within the UK as we becoming self sufficient in the transition to net zero and stop importing energy, not just from Russia but elsewhere when we can provide it ourselves and with high paid UK jobs
Net Zero is one thing - being self-sufficient in energy is another. We can ramp up oil and gas production but that won't make us net zero - investing more in renewables seems the obvious way forward and it wasn't that long ago we had 0% of our energy derived from coal on some days.
The other side of the equation is how much energy we use and whether a few simple measures could reduce our energy consumption but that will depend on the degree to which we are prepared to change (or compromise) our lifestyle to reduce energy consumption. That's going to be the harder sell.
It is a balance but it is a 20 year transition
I would recommend that HMG makes energy efficiency in homes a statutory requirement with a minimum rating of C required on the sale of property, thereby making improving energy efficiency a real positive but also that house sales will need to reflect in negotiations the costs and no doubt the owner reducing the price or the buyer greeing to make the investment
I understand some mortgages are available at at lower interest rates already for energy efficient homes
The cost according to X rebellion is one trillion to insulate all our homes and that is not possible from the government purse
It won't cost anything like a trillion. XR are dickheads.
How much do you think it will cost for every home in the UK
Let's assume there are 20 million homes in the UK. That's probably not too far from the truth.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
In the link I quoted 676 billion or 27 billion a year for 25 years
The problem is that is trying to get to exactly zero.
What is the cost of reducing home emissions by 80%? Or 60%?
There are usually a lot of easy wins. And we can bank them, and then move into the next in line.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
what is everyone drinking tonight - i am on the red wine
A passable Languedoc-Roussillon.
Chateau Ormes de Pez 2010, a half bottle to go with the excellent cote de boeuf I've cooked for myself, since my wife has (temporarily, I trust!) left me by myself in the hope of not catching the Covid which I picked up at a dinner last week.
Oh dear!
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
Yes, so far no problem on that score. Just a mild sore throat and a slight sniffle. We really do need to be hugely grateful for the vaccines
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
Hmm. I said rUK. You're not.
No such thing, we are one UK
You tell Mr Johnson that when it comes to NI.
NI is still in the UK, the government is in due course seeking to invoke Article 16
Whatever happens in the second half, the best bit of today's rugby for me was Josh Adams giving his MotM award to Ange Capuzzo, Italy's ten and a half stone fullback.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
The correct ones are race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership status.
The incorrect one is gender, which is stated as sex in the equalities act.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
Hmm. I said rUK. You're not.
No such thing, we are one UK
You tell Mr Johnson that when it comes to NI.
NI is still in the UK, the government is in due course seeking to invoke Article 16
But it's also in the EU which your lot swore blind and cut their grandmothers' throats was incompatible with being in the UK. Away and stop trying to pretend.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
This pledge purports to list the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 but it omits one - sex. Why? It also introduces one which does not exist - gender. Again - why?
Trans people are protected by the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As they should be.
This document will have gone through all sorts of drafts, been reviewed by lawyers, Ministers etc. And, yet, they still managed to get it wrong.
A mistake? Or deliberate?
What worries many women is this: discrimination against us, misogyny, violence, harassment etc happen to us because of our sex. So society has decided to make sex a protected characteristic in law in order to tackle this. The obligation is on public bodies. And yet, too often, we increasingly find that those bodies leave sex out or substitute it with gender which is (a) not the same as sex as we are constantly told and (b) not a protected characteristic.
So this raises the suspicion that these bodies are not serious about protecting women from the sex-based discrimination they face. And it is against this context that politicians who seem to equivocate about what women are seem to suggest that they are less than full-hearted in their support for womens' rights under the law.
If sex can be so easily removed from what bodies must take account of despite it being the current law, how can women have any confidence that the current law will even be maintained as it is? Especially when the policy of three of the main political parties is explicitly influenced by lobby groups who expressly want to remove sex from equalities legislation.
So no, @Phil, this is not about trans rights. It's about womens' rights and about why in so many ways - de facto if not de jure - womens' rights are being whittled away in practice.
Leaving aside the utter crassness, tastelessness, idiocy, and foolishness of Boris's grotesque comparison, what on earth - if anything - was it supposed to achieve? I would hope that the entire Conservative Party are embarrassed in disgust at his remarks, but, even if they're not, what voters do Boris, and his advisers, hope to attract by a remark like that? The Europe-detesting loons are going to vote Tory anyway - it's the sane, or at least the relatively sane, that he needs to get back onside.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
The current party doesn't do shame. Or humility. Or even common sense.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Actually, our good burgher of Epping does seem decently embarrassed. From early in this thread:
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
I'll be interested to see if he modifies his threats of rUK military intervention in other countries.
There is a difference between maintaining the union of the UK by refusing indyref2 and invading a neighbouring country.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
Hmm. I said rUK. You're not.
No such thing, we are one UK
You tell Mr Johnson that when it comes to NI.
NI is still in the UK, the government is in due course seeking to invoke Article 16
But it's also in the EU which your lot swore blind and cut their grandmothers' throats was incompatible with being in the UK. Away and stop trying to pretend.
It isn't in the EU either, it is aligned to some single market and customs union regulations, that is it
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
kle4 comes closest.
I'll take that - I could use a win.
Just make up your own bar chart and you can always be winning... (here)
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
This pledge purports to list the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 but it omits one - sex. Why? It also introduces one which does not exist - gender. Again - why?
Trans people are protected by the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As they should be.
This document will have gone through all sorts of drafts, been reviewed by lawyers, Ministers etc. And, yet, they still managed to get it wrong.
A mistake? Or deliberate?
What worries many women is this: discrimination against us, misogyny, violence, harassment etc happen to us because of our sex. So society has decided to make sex a protected characteristic in law in order to tackle this. The obligation is on public bodies. And yet, too often, we increasingly find that those bodies leave sex out or substitute it with gender which is (a) not the same as sex as we are constantly told and (b) not a protected characteristic.
So this raises the suspicion that these bodies are not serious about protecting women from the sex-based discrimination they face. And it is against this context that politicians who seem to equivocate about what women are seem to suggest that they are less than full-hearted in their support for womens' rights under the law.
If sex can be so easily removed from what bodies must take account of despite it being the current law, how can women have any confidence that the current law will even be maintained as it is? Especially when the policy of three of the main political parties is explicitly influenced by lobby groups who expressly want to remove sex from equalities legislation.
So no, @Phil, this is not about trans rights. It's about womens' rights and about why in so many ways - de facto if not de jure - womens' rights are being whittled away in practice.
You should point that out in a letter to Sajid Javid, copy to Kemi Badenoch (the thinking man's anti-wokester) and the NHS boss,
Really fancy the french for the World Cup. Classy team. I don’t think England have been that bad, but they have lost the breakdown hands down.
France are a class above all other northern hemisphere teams at the moment. And by a way.
They look super slick in the backs. Wilkinson has just highlighted the attacking moves that are unlocking the defence, but I’m not sure how you stop it. The forwards are powerful and are spitting out ball so fast that the defence has not chance to (a) contest the ruck or (b) reset. Cracking stuff.
In the section headed "Patients and the public: your rights and the NHS pledges to you" it says this -
"You have the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the provision of NHS services including on grounds of gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion, belief, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity or marital or civil partnership status."
Anyone like to tell me what's wrong with this pledge?
Well it is weird they have reordered the characteristics from the Equality Act. But I thought it was sex rather than gender. But I haven't done an equalities module in awhile so canot remember what is the correct answer.
kle4 comes closest.
I'll take that - I could use a win.
Actually @MattW got it right but I had started writing before I saw his answer. Sorry @MattW!
Really fancy the french for the World Cup. Classy team. I don’t think England have been that bad, but they have lost the breakdown hands down.
France are a class above all other northern hemisphere teams at the moment. And by a way.
They look super slick in the backs. Wilkinson has just highlighted the attacking moves that are unlocking the defence, but I’m not sure how you stop it. The forwards are powerful and are spitting out ball so fast that the defence has not chance to (a) contest the ruck or (b) reset. Cracking stuff.
Comments
What goes better with stilton and Christmas Cake?
I drink slowly, and still have all the above left (though stilton, of course, is a constant). Plus Panettone.
Plus I had a very quiet Christmas.
https://theconversation.com/five-numbers-that-lay-bare-the-mammoth-effort-needed-to-insulate-britains-homes-162540#:~:text=The cost to retrofit a,tag is £676 billion.I
Sorry, I’m a pedant.
I have to admit I saw a tweet from him about meeting with a number of Ukrainian MPs, and couldn't help but think Ukraine had been smart, as at least 2 were attractive women.
Sex is missing. Has anything been added?
And because of the Equality Act laundry list, they are not fully and fairly informing individuals of their legal rights, as it arguably implies that S (me not having read the Act recently but iirc it is there) does not give the same rights as a defining characteristic. I think this may, itself, be an act of discrimination.
It is also probably an act of confusion.
It should also be Religion or Belief, rather than "religion, belief". Not sure if that is relevant, however.
Next election will be classic pocket book as americans say.
Cost of living, jobs for young etc etc etc.
It's the economy stoopid,
Alternative name being the Christmas Carol rule
Cabernet sauvignon —> Sauvignon blanc
Word association, one assumes.
Labour: It's time for a change.
Tories: You cannot risk a change right now.
LDs: Someone listen to us!
SNP: Scottish Independence is the answer
PC: We're as important as the SNP (sure you are)
NI parties: Why will no one listen to us? Also, let's get really mad about flags or something, that'll show we're grown ups.
Latest Faragian vehicle: You cannot trust the mainstream parties.
Greens: Damnit, everyone is talking about Green things now. But we're still the Greenest.
I recall Brown trying to suggest a time of crisis was no time for a change to those without experience, which was a good variation, as it would mean you should never change government - if things were going well why make a change, and if things were going badly you need experienced people.
Boris, I take all major credit cards.
All he's done is remind everyone that he is utterly unfit for office. Not sure that's wise career planning.
Now, at the one end you'll have 100 year old homes that have never had any insulation and leak heat like a sieve. On the other, you'll have modern apartment complexes with double or triple glazing, which will require nothing.
Let's also not forget that the 80:20 rule applies here. You can achieve an awful lot pretty easily - you don't need to do *everything*, you can do the most cost effective things (such as roof insulation) pretty easily and cheaply.
So, I'd say you can do an awful lot with just 20 billion.
I just sound progressively more like @SeanT as the effects kick in.
Major managed it in '92, of course, but it was a close-run thing, and Major's pitch had been heavily refreshed from late Thatcher. It's really hard to see Bozza pulling the same trick again.
So, assuming that he can't say "life is better under Johnson", his options are "stick with nurse" (for fear of worse) or "woke under the bed", neither of which looks edifying.
In the long run the second question is more interesting.
Exhibit A: Epping's finest.
Not an invitation btw
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Rudimentary_treatise_on_masting_mast_mak/6l4BAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=rove+rigging&pg=PA114&printsec=frontcover
But if Chambers says it is, that is all one needs for scrabbling. Which Mrs C is doing with her mum at present while I check in on PB.
I have to agree, I think Boris could have phrased his words slightly differently.
The UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum, the UK was not fighting for freedom from the EU following an EU invasion of the UK.
The Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion is therefore rather different
And until 2024, they are the only ones that matter. The electorate as a whole can go hang.
'After you dear.'
A pledge to do all they can to heal diseases in a timely manner would be a help.
Oh, and Tesco's most adequate Spanish Chardonnay.
We are not going to invade the Republic of Ireland for example as Russia has invaded the Ukraine
Bored fuckless by Brexit. No-one cares anymore, and Boris needs to learn that as much as the FBPE mob.
Bad as each other.
One thing about Omicron is that it doesn't seem to clobber taste and smell as much.
What is the cost of reducing home emissions by 80%? Or 60%?
There are usually a lot of easy wins. And we can bank them, and then move into the next in line.
Don't let great be the enemy of good.
They are third best in a two-team game.
The incorrect one is gender, which is stated as sex in the equalities act.
This pledge purports to list the 9 protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 but it omits one - sex. Why? It also introduces one which does not exist - gender. Again - why?
Trans people are protected by the gender reassignment protected characteristic. As they should be.
This document will have gone through all sorts of drafts, been reviewed by lawyers, Ministers etc. And, yet, they still managed to get it wrong.
A mistake? Or deliberate?
What worries many women is this: discrimination against us, misogyny, violence, harassment etc happen to us because of our sex. So society has decided to make sex a protected characteristic in law in order to tackle this. The obligation is on public bodies. And yet, too often, we increasingly find that those bodies leave sex out or substitute it with gender which is (a) not the same as sex as we are constantly told and (b) not a protected characteristic.
So this raises the suspicion that these bodies are not serious about protecting women from the sex-based discrimination they face. And it is against this context that politicians who seem to equivocate about what women are seem to suggest that they are less than full-hearted in their support for womens' rights under the law.
If sex can be so easily removed from what bodies must take account of despite it being the current law, how can women have any confidence that the current law will even be maintained as it is? Especially when the policy of three of the main political parties is explicitly influenced by lobby groups who expressly want to remove sex from equalities legislation.
So no, @Phil, this is not about trans rights. It's about womens' rights and about why in so many ways - de facto if not de jure - womens' rights are being whittled away in practice.
Cracking stuff.
Deputy Commander of Russian Black Sea Fleet Andrey Paliy reportedly eliminated in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1505286576179486724