A bit of French number crunching, comparing first round 2017 with first round 2022.
- Macron increased his first round lead over Le Pen by 1.5%, so a small first round swing in Macron's favour. - Swing from right of centre candidates to left of centre candidates was around 6%, 48-28 -> 40-32. Drop on right because the Republican vote was not fully compensated, rise on left because Greens fully balanced Socialist losses, whilst the remainder of the left edged up across the board. - If you include Macron on the left swing is slightly bigger. - That said Melenchon was only up 2.5% again with tiny swings relative to Macron and Le Pen.
So looking at Macron-Le Pen-Melenchon 2022 first round is remarkably similar to 2017.
If you are looking for reasons that 2022 might be different, you are mainly banking on this:
- A substantial drop in the vote for mainstream, comfortably coalitionable parties, from 56 to 40%, including the uncomfortable right rising from 22.5 to 34% (the uncomfortable right vote was just a smidge below Le Pen's second round share last time).
Also, an increased unwillingness on the part of left wing voters to hold their noses and vote for Macron.
The challenge is this for Le Pen. Damaged though Macron is by incumbency, she has to be significantly more transfer friendly than Macron to win and it is tricky to see where her 1.4m vote gain comes from, given transfers broke 80 : 20 for Macron last time. Le Pen needs around a 55 : 45 win on transfers this time, depending on turnout.
I don't think Macron runs away with this, but I can't quite see which blocs turn over his lead from:
2.5m Zemmour voters (heavily Le Pen -> LP 500k lead) 2.25m very traditional core Republican and Socialist voters (quite heavily Macron -> level) 1.8m alternative centre right voters (slightly Le Pen -> 300k LP lead) 10.5m hard leftists and greens
So, Le Pen has to defend a small.lead in the few 100k range amongst 10 million leftists.
Did you see this poll?
Macron is only getting a third of Melenchon's vote. The election will be won and lost on how many of the remaining Melenchon voters who won't vote for Macron can be persuaded to press the button marked 'do not press'.
On those numbers Macron is getting more Pecresse voters in the runoff than Melenchon voters (even if more Pecresse than Melenchon voters are also voting for Le Pen).
Macron urgently needs to get more Melenchon voters to vote for him rather than stay home if he is to get a clear victory in the runoff
Wouldn't be surprised if Melenchon's vote splits about a third Macron, a third Le Pen, a third abstention.
Very hard to see that. Le Pen is Putin-backed nasty racist and her pro-Putin links over the years are not going to help her.
The worst is best. By electing a far right leader, capitalism is entering its final, terminal, stage, which will be followed by true socialism. And as others have pointed out, they both like Putin.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
As PB seems to have circled back to the trans issue I thought this was a very good article on the subject. My sister, who is shall we say more on the @Cyclefree side of the debate, sent it to me saying how good it was which indicates it must be ok.
I'm not sure that people would have confidence in a Royal Commission to chart a way forward on this. I fear that the past record and statements of every member of the Commission would be pored over in exhaustive detail to find reasons to exclude people, and this would create a cloud of controversy that would make it hard for all sides to accept any recommendations.
I'd therefore suggest that the model of a citizen's assembly, as used on contentious issues like abortion in Ireland, might be a better way for the evidence and the arguments to be heard and discussed, and compromises explored.
I would have thought so. This for me was the key para that stood out:
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
Can someone please explain to me the issue with trans being excluded from the government's 'conversion therapy' ban? My understanding is that conversion therapy was a a form of therapy that sought to persuade homosexuals that they weren't really gay? What does that have to do with trans people? Is there a form of conversion therapy going on with trans people? I haven't heard about.
And can we please acknowledge that sexual preference and gender identity are two different things?
I don't know what the issue is about gay conversion therapy either (in the literal sense of, I do not know what group of people is doing it to what other group of people). religious fundamentalists to their children?
I'm also unhappy with the consensus on banning it. the first thing is, I'd have thought it was entirely, 100% ineffective, but if I am a religious and gay adult who wants to pay a therapist to enact God's will by turning me straight why would that be anyone else's business?
Don't some religious groups use it as part of their homosexuality is the work of the devil belief? I could be mistaken (has happened) or have taken my info from a Netflix series - what was that one, Orthodox, perhaps.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
"A man has been found guilty of murdering Sir David Amess MP.
The Southend West MP was stabbed more than 20 times during a constituency surgery in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex on 15 October 2021. Ali Harbi Ali, 26, of Kentish Town, north London, was also found guilty of preparing acts of terrorism by jurors at the Old Bailey. Ali had denied the charges and claimed he targeted the MP over his vote for airstrikes on Syria.
As long at that? Was that 17 minutes of 'How was your weekend?' followed by 'Guilty? - All agreed'
They’ve got to leave the court room, walk to the jury room, get settled in, have an usher tell them arrangements, sit down, ‘Guilty? All agreed’, get up, summon usher, who tells the judge, go back to the court room.
Electing a foreman would take a few minutes.
Does that happen at the start of the deliberations? Always assumed it was done at the start of the trial, but I know nothing about the legal system!
Yes. For instance:- I have to be careful. But I can sensationally reveal that, retiring just after noon, we decide… to have our sandwiches first. There’s tea and instant coffee on a table in the corner. And I have brought some Percy Pigs to share.
That was one of the things that struck me in that bizarre meeting of Putin with his most senior advisers. Hopefully once a generation of men who came of age in the time of the KGB have departed the scene Russia will be able to move on. Without wanting to sound callous hopefully the vodka can do its work and nature will eventually take its course.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
And they can be - read Nick Herbert's piece or I have reprinted the key para around precisely these concerns.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
And they can be - read Nick Herbert's piece or I have reprinted the key para around precisely these concerns.
Yes, I agree with that too and have said as much on here before. This really doesn't benefit from the heat and fury that is thrown at it by either side.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
The problem is with the opportunistic abusers that will exploit the opportunities created by self-id allowing access to various women only environments. I get exasperated by people proposing change but then assuming that behaviour won't change.
A bit of French number crunching, comparing first round 2017 with first round 2022.
- Macron increased his first round lead over Le Pen by 1.5%, so a small first round swing in Macron's favour. - Swing from right of centre candidates to left of centre candidates was around 6%, 48-28 -> 40-32. Drop on right because the Republican vote was not fully compensated, rise on left because Greens fully balanced Socialist losses, whilst the remainder of the left edged up across the board. - If you include Macron on the left swing is slightly bigger. - That said Melenchon was only up 2.5% again with tiny swings relative to Macron and Le Pen.
So looking at Macron-Le Pen-Melenchon 2022 first round is remarkably similar to 2017.
If you are looking for reasons that 2022 might be different, you are mainly banking on this:
- A substantial drop in the vote for mainstream, comfortably coalitionable parties, from 56 to 40%, including the uncomfortable right rising from 22.5 to 34% (the uncomfortable right vote was just a smidge below Le Pen's second round share last time).
Also, an increased unwillingness on the part of left wing voters to hold their noses and vote for Macron.
The challenge is this for Le Pen. Damaged though Macron is by incumbency, she has to be significantly more transfer friendly than Macron to win and it is tricky to see where her 1.4m vote gain comes from, given transfers broke 80 : 20 for Macron last time. Le Pen needs around a 55 : 45 win on transfers this time, depending on turnout.
I don't think Macron runs away with this, but I can't quite see which blocs turn over his lead from:
2.5m Zemmour voters (heavily Le Pen -> LP 500k lead) 2.25m very traditional core Republican and Socialist voters (quite heavily Macron -> level) 1.8m alternative centre right voters (slightly Le Pen -> 300k LP lead) 10.5m hard leftists and greens
So, Le Pen has to defend a small.lead in the few 100k range amongst 10 million leftists.
Did you see this poll?
Macron is only getting a third of Melenchon's vote. The election will be won and lost on how many of the remaining Melenchon voters who won't vote for Macron can be persuaded to press the button marked 'do not press'.
On those numbers Macron is getting more Pecresse voters in the runoff than Melenchon voters (even if more Pecresse than Melenchon voters are also voting for Le Pen).
Macron urgently needs to get more Melenchon voters to vote for him rather than stay home if he is to get a clear victory in the runoff
Wouldn't be surprised if Melenchon's vote splits about a third Macron, a third Le Pen, a third abstention.
Very hard to see that. Le Pen is Putin-backed nasty racist and her pro-Putin links over the years are not going to help her.
Being pro Putin doesn’t seem to be much of a problem in French politics at the moment. Melenchon was actually more pro Putin than Le Pen. Yes more pro Putin than the bought-and-paid-for candidate.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
"We tentatively estimate that there are approximately 200,000-500,000 trans people in the UK" does not equate to "about 1% are out as trans," it is 0.4%-1% and it is a tentative estimate of everyone, not just the "out."
Define transgender. It is a very elastic term these days. Much harder to define than woman.
Does it just mean those with gender dysphoria? Or anybody who dresses from time to time in woman's clothes? Or those with autogynephilia? (Men who become sexually aroused at the thought or image of themselves as a woman) Or those who would just like to be a woman - well just because. Or those who decide to identify as a woman if it is convenient eg male sex offenders who identify as women when sent to prison?
Or what?
I'd like to see that question posed to politicians.
Until you have clarity on the terms used, I'd be sceptical of drawing any conclusions from statistics.
As Mandy Rhodes writes:
And legislators are rightly nervous about cementing in statute a gender ideology which currently has no status in law and no clear definitions. What can you ban that you can’t name?
Agree that that is where the debate has to actually start, rather than try and wrap a package of rights around a Cloud of Unknowing.
There was a very fluffy letter from essentially a group of 'inclusive church' campaigners featured on LDV the other day, which sounds very good but imo did not contribute very much to moving a complex conversation forward:
Bleating ninnydom from Welby, and further evidence for my thesis that Old Etonians should be barred from public office of any kind for the next 200 years. Why does the idiot think anyone is confused between gay conversion vs Christian conversion? If I say I am going to convert my garden shed into a sauna does he feel the need to rush into print to clarify the difference?
More importantly does he not see that "the attempt to induce vulnerable and isolated people to deny who they truly are" cuts both ways? If you are faced with say a 14 year old who says they need to transition you are going to want to have a long on-the-one-hand, on-the-other conversation with them, and you can't just cut out one side of the argument. And further for every twat who wants to say that it is flying in the face of nature, messing with God's handiwork etc, there is an equal and opposite twat who thinks that transism is a kind of gospel to be spread and every convert is sticking it to the squares. And boringly but inevitably, there are huge prudential arguments and they are on the side of caution, of not commiting, because irreversible means irreversible.
The thought that people as stupid as this are ex officio members of the legislature is concerning.
Something of a divide within the Church of England on this between liberals and evangelicals.
Note Rowan Williams, Welby's predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury, has signed that inclusive church letter opposing the government's failure to include trans people in its ban on homosexual conversion therapy even if Welby has not.
Williams is on the liberal Catholic wing of the Church of England, Welby is on the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England. Normally the Archbishop of Canterbury rotates between liberal Catholics and conservative Evengelicals eg Runcie liberal Catholic, Carey conservative Evangelical, Williams liberal Catholic, Welby conservative Evangelical. So you would expect the next Archbishop to be a liberal Catholic, maybe Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York?
If the archbishops cannot arrange to get Easter out of the way before the Craven meeting at Newmarket, then what is the point of them?
A bit of French number crunching, comparing first round 2017 with first round 2022.
- Macron increased his first round lead over Le Pen by 1.5%, so a small first round swing in Macron's favour. - Swing from right of centre candidates to left of centre candidates was around 6%, 48-28 -> 40-32. Drop on right because the Republican vote was not fully compensated, rise on left because Greens fully balanced Socialist losses, whilst the remainder of the left edged up across the board. - If you include Macron on the left swing is slightly bigger. - That said Melenchon was only up 2.5% again with tiny swings relative to Macron and Le Pen.
So looking at Macron-Le Pen-Melenchon 2022 first round is remarkably similar to 2017.
If you are looking for reasons that 2022 might be different, you are mainly banking on this:
- A substantial drop in the vote for mainstream, comfortably coalitionable parties, from 56 to 40%, including the uncomfortable right rising from 22.5 to 34% (the uncomfortable right vote was just a smidge below Le Pen's second round share last time).
Also, an increased unwillingness on the part of left wing voters to hold their noses and vote for Macron.
The challenge is this for Le Pen. Damaged though Macron is by incumbency, she has to be significantly more transfer friendly than Macron to win and it is tricky to see where her 1.4m vote gain comes from, given transfers broke 80 : 20 for Macron last time. Le Pen needs around a 55 : 45 win on transfers this time, depending on turnout.
I don't think Macron runs away with this, but I can't quite see which blocs turn over his lead from:
2.5m Zemmour voters (heavily Le Pen -> LP 500k lead) 2.25m very traditional core Republican and Socialist voters (quite heavily Macron -> level) 1.8m alternative centre right voters (slightly Le Pen -> 300k LP lead) 10.5m hard leftists and greens
So, Le Pen has to defend a small.lead in the few 100k range amongst 10 million leftists.
Did you see this poll?
Macron is only getting a third of Melenchon's vote. The election will be won and lost on how many of the remaining Melenchon voters who won't vote for Macron can be persuaded to press the button marked 'do not press'.
On those numbers Macron is getting more Pecresse voters in the runoff than Melenchon voters (even if more Pecresse than Melenchon voters are also voting for Le Pen).
Macron urgently needs to get more Melenchon voters to vote for him rather than stay home if he is to get a clear victory in the runoff
Wouldn't be surprised if Melenchon's vote splits about a third Macron, a third Le Pen, a third abstention.
Very hard to see that. Le Pen is Putin-backed nasty racist and her pro-Putin links over the years are not going to help her.
The worst is best. By electing a far right leader, capitalism is entering its final, terminal, stage, which will be followed by true socialism. And as others have pointed out, they both like Putin.
Certainly Macron is the more pro Capitalism of the 2. He has scrapped a wealth tax and supported lower benefits and raising the retirement age which Le Pen has opposed.
Hence already more Pecresse than Melenchon voters are backing Macron.
There is an argument if Melenchon voters lent their votes to Le Pen they would at least defeat liberal Capitalism by ousting Macron.
They could then aim for a runoff between Melenchon Socialism and Le Pen's statist Nationalism in 2027
Not really, the split is urban rural, France has plenty of cities that are thriving, not just Paris, and they settled for Macron (their poor and working-class districts settled for Mélenchon), and most people live in cities and large towns nowadays. These maps pretending elections are fought across hectares, not people, are mostly for consumption by doomster liberals on Twitter.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
Golly, certain folk will be setting up a crowdfunded to send him back to the jail.
As you have argued on another issue this morning, you have to start by recognising the nature of the problem. And the nature of the problem is not an aberration of politics in one or two countries, it is not a French problem (or a Hungarian problem, or a British, American or Polish problem). The problem is a deep and spreading discontent with democratic politics generally, which is failing to deliver economic security and a sense of purpose and meaning to its people.
A bit of tinkering here and there, and some frowning faces at EU summits, is not going to change this trajectory. I had thought that the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have an effect, but Le Pen is at yet untouched.
We have to start with an admission that, fundamentally, the politics of the last couple of decades, or so, has failed. There might be many on here who have fond memories of the Coalition years, or of life under Blair, but it was their policies that created the conditions for this discontent. This is their doing. We have to do something different. We will do something different. If we don't think of a better idea the different thing that will be done with be more or less authoritarian right-wing populism.
Probably true. I think we all overestimate the fundamental importance of our preferred philosophies compared with providing a decent life. I was startled by a poll the other day (French, I think) showing that over 30% thought it would be good if the country was run by a single autocrat. For many people in hard times, liberal democracy is still acknowledged as a nice idea, but just one of many nice ideas, and not necessarily the decisive one.
My grandmother was a close friend of Mrs Kerensky, the wife (separated by the time I met her) of the moderate Menshevik leader who tried to introduce democracy to Russia in 1917. The mother said that her understanding (she'd not lived in Russia herself) was that Kerensky was a decent, liberal-minded man, but most Russians felt, after 3 years of war and economic crisis, that it was stupefyingly out of touch to be pondering bills of rights and forms of elections. The Bolsheviks promised "peace and bread", and that sounded much more relevant to a lot of people. I don't think we've got to that stage of desperation, and I expect Macron to win, but it's probably true that "vote for the democrat against the authoritarian" is no longer the automatic election-winner that we'd like to think.
Can someone please explain to me the issue with trans being excluded from the government's 'conversion therapy' ban? My understanding is that conversion therapy was a a form of therapy that sought to persuade homosexuals that they weren't really gay? What does that have to do with trans people? Is there a form of conversion therapy going on with trans people? I haven't heard about.
And can we please acknowledge that sexual preference and gender identity are two different things?
The perceived danger with including trans conversion therapy is that it might prohibit medical treatment for gender dysmorphia and also counselling for young people that didn't simply enable and validate conversion.
A women in tears on BBC News explaining the horrific position she is in now with her Universal Credit being effectively cut as the 3% increase is far behind the inflation rate .
These are the real life impacts of the Tories disgusting abandonement of those on in work benefits who are in a desperate situation .
Though the UK median pay rise this year also only 3%
I just love the idea that the Government can keep affording all these increases in benefit
The government could if they taxed the wealthy.
Take a tithe from millionaires to allow people on benefits to afford heating and eating. Seems fair to me.
Tax the wealthy? if only it was that easy
Oh well, now you've explained in detail why it can't be done...
The top 1% of earners already pay around 28-29% of all income tax collected.
They are paying more in tax now then they have ever done, more than under 13 years of Labour.
If rates go up much more than the total collected from the wealthy will go down as they will find ways to avoid paying tax.
I don't think many are looking at income on the 1% being a big new source of revenue. Hasn't the debate moved elsewhere? Land, property, gains, inheritance etc.
Yes there needs to be significant extra tax on UNEARNED wealth 👍
Why do people view returns on capital as unearned?
Wages are the earnings from labour Investment income is just the earnings from capital
We should tax land more appropriately though as the third element of production
Because you have to put a lot more active effort in for labor than for capital.
There are good reasons for taxes on land, but as an element of production, it is a bit of an archaic view.
A tax on land might produce some interesting incentives. For government.
Consider - I nearly bought some agricultural land in Marden, Kent. £7k an acre.
It would be fairly easy to put a million pounds worth of domestic property on each acre.
All the government would have to do to increase tax revenue on such land by multiple orders of magnitude would be to grant planning permission…..
Can someone please explain to me the issue with trans being excluded from the government's 'conversion therapy' ban? My understanding is that conversion therapy was a a form of therapy that sought to persuade homosexuals that they weren't really gay? What does that have to do with trans people? Is there a form of conversion therapy going on with trans people? I haven't heard about.
And can we please acknowledge that sexual preference and gender identity are two different things?
AIUI no one is arguing that you should try to talk people out of being trans - the issue is that gender dysphoria (believing yourself to be in the wrong body) is more difficult to diagnose than homosexuality - the consensus now being that the latter is pretty much “hard wired”.
What presents as Gender dysphoria on the other hand may be internalised homophobia - and banning discussing it with young adults for example may lead to mis-diagnosis and potentially ruinous treatment paths.
It’s notable that historically trans people tended to be m to f, and tended to present later in life. What’s giving some pause for thought is the recent significant increase in young F to M patients who may also have other conditions (eg autism) - it’s poorly understood and there’s too ideology bound up in some of the discussions.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
"We tentatively estimate that there are approximately 200,000-500,000 trans people in the UK" does not equate to "about 1% are out as trans," it is 0.4%-1% and it is a tentative estimate of everyone, not just the "out."
Define transgender. It is a very elastic term these days. Much harder to define than woman.
Does it just mean those with gender dysphoria? Or anybody who dresses from time to time in woman's clothes? Or those with autogynephilia? (Men who become sexually aroused at the thought or image of themselves as a woman) Or those who would just like to be a woman - well just because. Or those who decide to identify as a woman if it is convenient eg male sex offenders who identify as women when sent to prison?
Or what?
I'd like to see that question posed to politicians.
Until you have clarity on the terms used, I'd be sceptical of drawing any conclusions from statistics.
As Mandy Rhodes writes:
And legislators are rightly nervous about cementing in statute a gender ideology which currently has no status in law and no clear definitions. What can you ban that you can’t name?
Agree that that is where the debate has to actually start, rather than try and wrap a package of rights around a Cloud of Unknowing.
There was a very fluffy letter from essentially a group of 'inclusive church' campaigners featured on LDV the other day, which sounds very good but imo did not contribute very much to moving a complex conversation forward:
Bleating ninnydom from Welby, and further evidence for my thesis that Old Etonians should be barred from public office of any kind for the next 200 years. Why does the idiot think anyone is confused between gay conversion vs Christian conversion? If I say I am going to convert my garden shed into a sauna does he feel the need to rush into print to clarify the difference?
More importantly does he not see that "the attempt to induce vulnerable and isolated people to deny who they truly are" cuts both ways? If you are faced with say a 14 year old who says they need to transition you are going to want to have a long on-the-one-hand, on-the-other conversation with them, and you can't just cut out one side of the argument. And further for every twat who wants to say that it is flying in the face of nature, messing with God's handiwork etc, there is an equal and opposite twat who thinks that transism is a kind of gospel to be spread and every convert is sticking it to the squares. And boringly but inevitably, there are huge prudential arguments and they are on the side of caution, of not commiting, because irreversible means irreversible.
The thought that people as stupid as this are ex officio members of the legislature is concerning.
Something of a divide within the Church of England on this between liberals and evangelicals.
Note Rowan Williams, Welby's predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury, has signed that inclusive church letter opposing the government's failure to include trans people in its ban on homosexual conversion therapy even if Welby has not.
Williams is on the liberal Catholic wing of the Church of England, Welby is on the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England. Normally the Archbishop of Canterbury rotates between liberal Catholics and conservative Evengelicals eg Runcie liberal Catholic, Carey conservative Evangelical, Williams liberal Catholic, Welby conservative Evangelical. So you would expect the next Archbishop to be a liberal Catholic, maybe Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York?
If the archbishops cannot arrange to get Easter out of the way before the Craven meeting at Newmarket, then what is the point of them?
Easter is held on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
And they can be - read Nick Herbert's piece or I have reprinted the key para around precisely these concerns.
Yes, I agree with that too and have said as much on here before. This really doesn't benefit from the heat and fury that is thrown at it by either side.
I don't think there are two sides. There may be anti-trans people though I have never encountered one in real life or in writing, but the people labelled transphobes are in reality people who recognise that the rights of the trans, the potentially trans, and women in general, all deserve separate and careful consideration and protection. That seems to be the most innocuous thing I have ever said about anything, ever, but it's enough to get me sacked for transphobia.
Can someone please explain to me the issue with trans being excluded from the government's 'conversion therapy' ban? My understanding is that conversion therapy was a a form of therapy that sought to persuade homosexuals that they weren't really gay? What does that have to do with trans people? Is there a form of conversion therapy going on with trans people? I haven't heard about.
And can we please acknowledge that sexual preference and gender identity are two different things?
Of course sexual preference and gender identity are two different things, who is saying otherwise?
As you have argued on another issue this morning, you have to start by recognising the nature of the problem. And the nature of the problem is not an aberration of politics in one or two countries, it is not a French problem (or a Hungarian problem, or a British, American or Polish problem). The problem is a deep and spreading discontent with democratic politics generally, which is failing to deliver economic security and a sense of purpose and meaning to its people.
A bit of tinkering here and there, and some frowning faces at EU summits, is not going to change this trajectory. I had thought that the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have an effect, but Le Pen is at yet untouched.
We have to start with an admission that, fundamentally, the politics of the last couple of decades, or so, has failed. There might be many on here who have fond memories of the Coalition years, or of life under Blair, but it was their policies that created the conditions for this discontent. This is their doing. We have to do something different. We will do something different. If we don't think of a better idea the different thing that will be done with be more or less authoritarian right-wing populism.
Probably true. I think we all overestimate the fundamental importance of our preferred philosophies compared with providing a decent life. I was startled by a poll the other day (French, I think) showing that over 30% thought it would be good if the country was run by a single autocrat. For many people in hard times, liberal democracy is still acknowledged as a nice idea, but just one of many nice ideas, and not necessarily the decisive one.
The problem with liberal democracy is that it tries to please everyone, and often ends up pleasing no one.
Look back over the last 200 years of British history, we built the railways, the motorways, created the NHS, built Concorde and the channel tunnel.
Now, everything seems small and small fry and politicians seem to have both little vision, and little power. No big plans and even the ones we have (HS2, or Heathrows 3rd runway) are bogged down in endless debate.
Now I don't know if those things are ultimately good, but we've decided to do them, we should do them, and get on with it.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
"We tentatively estimate that there are approximately 200,000-500,000 trans people in the UK" does not equate to "about 1% are out as trans," it is 0.4%-1% and it is a tentative estimate of everyone, not just the "out."
Define transgender. It is a very elastic term these days. Much harder to define than woman.
Does it just mean those with gender dysphoria? Or anybody who dresses from time to time in woman's clothes? Or those with autogynephilia? (Men who become sexually aroused at the thought or image of themselves as a woman) Or those who would just like to be a woman - well just because. Or those who decide to identify as a woman if it is convenient eg male sex offenders who identify as women when sent to prison?
Or what?
I'd like to see that question posed to politicians.
Until you have clarity on the terms used, I'd be sceptical of drawing any conclusions from statistics.
As Mandy Rhodes writes:
And legislators are rightly nervous about cementing in statute a gender ideology which currently has no status in law and no clear definitions. What can you ban that you can’t name?
Agree that that is where the debate has to actually start, rather than try and wrap a package of rights around a Cloud of Unknowing.
There was a very fluffy letter from essentially a group of 'inclusive church' campaigners featured on LDV the other day, which sounds very good but imo did not contribute very much to moving a complex conversation forward:
Bleating ninnydom from Welby, and further evidence for my thesis that Old Etonians should be barred from public office of any kind for the next 200 years. Why does the idiot think anyone is confused between gay conversion vs Christian conversion? If I say I am going to convert my garden shed into a sauna does he feel the need to rush into print to clarify the difference?
More importantly does he not see that "the attempt to induce vulnerable and isolated people to deny who they truly are" cuts both ways? If you are faced with say a 14 year old who says they need to transition you are going to want to have a long on-the-one-hand, on-the-other conversation with them, and you can't just cut out one side of the argument. And further for every twat who wants to say that it is flying in the face of nature, messing with God's handiwork etc, there is an equal and opposite twat who thinks that transism is a kind of gospel to be spread and every convert is sticking it to the squares. And boringly but inevitably, there are huge prudential arguments and they are on the side of caution, of not commiting, because irreversible means irreversible.
The thought that people as stupid as this are ex officio members of the legislature is concerning.
Something of a divide within the Church of England on this between liberals and evangelicals.
Note Rowan Williams, Welby's predecessor as Archbishop of Canterbury, has signed that inclusive church letter opposing the government's failure to include trans people in its ban on homosexual conversion therapy even if Welby has not.
Williams is on the liberal Catholic wing of the Church of England, Welby is on the conservative Evangelical wing of the Church of England. Normally the Archbishop of Canterbury rotates between liberal Catholics and conservative Evengelicals eg Runcie liberal Catholic, Carey conservative Evangelical, Williams liberal Catholic, Welby conservative Evangelical. So you would expect the next Archbishop to be a liberal Catholic, maybe Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York?
If the archbishops cannot arrange to get Easter out of the way before the Craven meeting at Newmarket, then what is the point of them?
Easter is held on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox.
Racing does not come into it
And that, ladies and gentlemen, shows that we are still decades away from AGI.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
And they can be - read Nick Herbert's piece or I have reprinted the key para around precisely these concerns.
Yes, I agree with that too and have said as much on here before. This really doesn't benefit from the heat and fury that is thrown at it by either side.
I don't think there are two sides. There may be anti-trans people though I have never encountered one in real life or in writing, but the people labelled transphobes are in reality people who recognise that the rights of the trans, the potentially trans, and women in general, all deserve separate and careful consideration and protection. That seems to be the most innocuous thing I have ever said about anything, ever, but it's enough to get me sacked for transphobia.
Its you must believe or fight for A, B, C, D or you're a transphobe! No compromise, no recognition that there are other interests, no willingness to even discuss. It winds a lot of people up and causes unnecessary friction.
And also I see that I leave PB for one weekend and come back to see that there was a discussion about my (and Dura's) supposed military knowledge or lack of it.
I would go with the latter. For me.
Look on me as a frog in a well. A well that was built five hundred years ago. I know a very specific amount about a very specific theatre (two, actually) and the relevance of that knowledge ran out many years ago.
I would say, however, that having been in the "milieu" then some, very limited stuff I (and no doubt Dura) take as read and we have some context for (whether or not the complete destruction of an armoured column was likely by hand held anti-tank weapons or not, say) but there is a world of google out there otherwise for everyone to look and learn.
I did like the comment from @Dura_Ace to the effect that books would be written on the efforts the Russians seem to have made to tailor their war to their weaknesses.
Very hard to predict that one side will start channeling the spirit of Generalissimo Lopez of Paraguay. Particularly when they had shown previous evidence of brutally effective semi-competence.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
I agree with all of that but these extreme cases still need to be dealt with in a way that does not impinge on the rights of others, specifically women.
And they can be - read Nick Herbert's piece or I have reprinted the key para around precisely these concerns.
Indeed, and that is the law, whether existing or under the Self ID propasals.
If people are not following the law, then that is a matter for the Police, and in an NHS context their professional bodies.
French pollsters are generally pretty good. I know they sometimes get things somewhat wrong - eg overstating Le Pen. But they rarely seem to have disasters
I therefore see no reason to doubt their 2nd round predictions. A rather narrow but tolerable win for Macron
The key is turnout. There will be lots of voters who don't like Macron, but would be horrified by Le Pen. The ideal outcome for them would be for other people to elect Macron, so that they didn't have to. But if enough of these voters rely on others to do the dirty work of voting for Macron for them, then he can lose.
Lets all be clear here - the election of the far right would be a catastrophe for the post-war settlement. Even a more cuddly far right as MLP now proposes. Forget Orban in Hungary, this is the ball game.
The problem in French politics is that the electoral system has proven beneficial to the far right so that they can usually now make the final two which means whichever berk is on top wins. But what if people can't bring themselves to vote for another 5 years of En Berke?
How would the EU manage the hard right running its second member?
As you have argued on another issue this morning, you have to start by recognising the nature of the problem. And the nature of the problem is not an aberration of politics in one or two countries, it is not a French problem (or a Hungarian problem, or a British, American or Polish problem). The problem is a deep and spreading discontent with democratic politics generally, which is failing to deliver economic security and a sense of purpose and meaning to its people.
A bit of tinkering here and there, and some frowning faces at EU summits, is not going to change this trajectory. I had thought that the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have an effect, but Le Pen is at yet untouched.
We have to start with an admission that, fundamentally, the politics of the last couple of decades, or so, has failed. There might be many on here who have fond memories of the Coalition years, or of life under Blair, but it was their policies that created the conditions for this discontent. This is their doing. We have to do something different. We will do something different. If we don't think of a better idea the different thing that will be done with be more or less authoritarian right-wing populism.
Why only the last couple of decades? In the case of the UK, if we think that growing income inequality is one cause of the discontentment we are seeing, the big increase in inequality happened in the 1980s. Inequality actually declined a bit under Major, Blair and Brown, although it has increased again since 2010. Ultimately, I think voter discontentment and the rise of populism has three causes. Low productivity growth, an ageing population and a loss of memory about what populism led to last time we tried it in Europe. The first problem we could try to fix but it won't be easy. The second problem is even harder to fix. The third problem may be insoluble. Perhaps populism is one of those diseases you need to catch occasionally to get immunity, although it might kill you in the process.
So about 1% are out as trans. True figure may be a lot higher.
A minority but not a minority to drive a bulldozer into.
Some of the definitions for "trans" that I have seen used for the purposes of estimating population levels are absurd, though. For example, I saw one definition that would include anyone with behaviour that was not stereotypical of their gender defined as being trans. As a result you get wildly varying estimates depending on the definition used.
I still have not caught with all this. When people are born, they are either male or female. It is supposed that people in one group feel attracted by people in the other group.
Some people find that they are attracted by people in the same group. These call themselves gay. I can understand that, and have no problem with it.
But this latest fashion - which I understand started in American - I am finding much more difficult, and I don't really believe in it. The nearest I can get to making sense of it is that some people who are really gay don't want to face up to it, and think that an operation will make life easier for them.
Or is there something more to it than that?
Apologies if I sound like a backwoods Tory, but I have not yet identified the problem that these people have. Perhaps the only real Conservative in the village can help sort this out for me?
I can only answer anecdotally from a friend going mtf. She believed she was in fact a female and a quirk of biology gave her a male body. She went through the whole rigmarole of living as a woman for 2 years and is now looking forward to an operation.
There are however other reasons out there
Yes, under current rules living as the opposite gender for 2 years is a prerequisite for surgery. That implies that even the most bone fide Transfolk will have to use opposite sex facilities for 2 years.
Or do what she did and just use disabled facilities. In her case she had a valid medical diagnosis. I think what most of what people are objecting to is the "hey I am a woman because I say so and should be allowed to use womens safe spaces"
We have already have had examples of this going badly wrong and yes maybe it is a handful of cases and small in number.
Here is the question how many women are you willing to have raped as acceptable collateral damage to allow self ID'ed people access?
None, and that is a complete misrepresentation of the proposals for self ID.
1) Self ID does not negate the need for a GRC, it just makes it easier and demedicalises it.
2) Single sex (not gender) facilities are a legitimate exclusion under the Equality act if there is a proportionate reason.
Its all in the parliamentary paper on the subject.
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle. And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
Troll, apart from Sturgeon's mob he is about the only person in Scotland who supports it. PS: Who demonises trans people , that is just whataboutery dog whistling
Global productivity has declined in the West. What growth has been delivered has been captured by the 1%.
This is even more the case in the UK, which since 2010 has fallen increasingly behind the growth vanguard, albeit masked by house price inflation which has kept a certain demographic happy.
In theory we should therefore have lots of fun “catch-up” to do, but that would require a serious re-examination of taboo topics around demography, planning and housing, regional development, infrastructure, consumption versus investment, brexit etc.
There are no easy answers, not least because inflation has now entered the mix.
Trans conversion therapy, channel 4 privatisation, walkabouts in kiev and even the chancellor’s tax status have nothing to do with the above.
A bit of French number crunching, comparing first round 2017 with first round 2022.
- Macron increased his first round lead over Le Pen by 1.5%, so a small first round swing in Macron's favour. - Swing from right of centre candidates to left of centre candidates was around 6%, 48-28 -> 40-32. Drop on right because the Republican vote was not fully compensated, rise on left because Greens fully balanced Socialist losses, whilst the remainder of the left edged up across the board. - If you include Macron on the left swing is slightly bigger. - That said Melenchon was only up 2.5% again with tiny swings relative to Macron and Le Pen.
So looking at Macron-Le Pen-Melenchon 2022 first round is remarkably similar to 2017.
If you are looking for reasons that 2022 might be different, you are mainly banking on this:
- A substantial drop in the vote for mainstream, comfortably coalitionable parties, from 56 to 40%, including the uncomfortable right rising from 22.5 to 34% (the uncomfortable right vote was just a smidge below Le Pen's second round share last time).
Also, an increased unwillingness on the part of left wing voters to hold their noses and vote for Macron.
The challenge is this for Le Pen. Damaged though Macron is by incumbency, she has to be significantly more transfer friendly than Macron to win and it is tricky to see where her 1.4m vote gain comes from, given transfers broke 80 : 20 for Macron last time. Le Pen needs around a 55 : 45 win on transfers this time, depending on turnout.
I don't think Macron runs away with this, but I can't quite see which blocs turn over his lead from:
2.5m Zemmour voters (heavily Le Pen -> LP 500k lead) 2.25m very traditional core Republican and Socialist voters (quite heavily Macron -> level) 1.8m alternative centre right voters (slightly Le Pen -> 300k LP lead) 10.5m hard leftists and greens
So, Le Pen has to defend a small.lead in the few 100k range amongst 10 million leftists.
Did you see this poll?
Macron is only getting a third of Melenchon's vote. The election will be won and lost on how many of the remaining Melenchon voters who won't vote for Macron can be persuaded to press the button marked 'do not press'.
My French tenses aren't what they used to be, was that poll done after yesterday's result?
French pollsters are generally pretty good. I know they sometimes get things somewhat wrong - eg overstating Le Pen. But they rarely seem to have disasters
I therefore see no reason to doubt their 2nd round predictions. A rather narrow but tolerable win for Macron
The key is turnout. There will be lots of voters who don't like Macron, but would be horrified by Le Pen. The ideal outcome for them would be for other people to elect Macron, so that they didn't have to. But if enough of these voters rely on others to do the dirty work of voting for Macron for them, then he can lose.
Lets all be clear here - the election of the far right would be a catastrophe for the post-war settlement. Even a more cuddly far right as MLP now proposes. Forget Orban in Hungary, this is the ball game.
The problem in French politics is that the electoral system has proven beneficial to the far right so that they can usually now make the final two which means whichever berk is on top wins. But what if people can't bring themselves to vote for another 5 years of En Berke?
How would the EU manage the hard right running its second member?
As you have argued on another issue this morning, you have to start by recognising the nature of the problem. And the nature of the problem is not an aberration of politics in one or two countries, it is not a French problem (or a Hungarian problem, or a British, American or Polish problem). The problem is a deep and spreading discontent with democratic politics generally, which is failing to deliver economic security and a sense of purpose and meaning to its people.
A bit of tinkering here and there, and some frowning faces at EU summits, is not going to change this trajectory. I had thought that the shock of the Russian invasion of Ukraine would have an effect, but Le Pen is at yet untouched.
We have to start with an admission that, fundamentally, the politics of the last couple of decades, or so, has failed. There might be many on here who have fond memories of the Coalition years, or of life under Blair, but it was their policies that created the conditions for this discontent. This is their doing. We have to do something different. We will do something different. If we don't think of a better idea the different thing that will be done with be more or less authoritarian right-wing populism.
Why only the last couple of decades? In the case of the UK, if we think that growing income inequality is one cause of the discontentment we are seeing, the big increase in inequality happened in the 1980s. Inequality actually declined a bit under Major, Blair and Brown, although it has increased again since 2010. Ultimately, I think voter discontentment and the rise of populism has three causes. Low productivity growth, an ageing population and a loss of memory about what populism led to last time we tried it in Europe. The first problem we could try to fix but it won't be easy. The second problem is even harder to fix. The third problem may be insoluble. Perhaps populism is one of those diseases you need to catch occasionally to get immunity, although it might kill you in the process.
My understanding is that, despite rising inequality, median incomes increased in the 80s and 90s. If you are getting better off then I don't think it bothers you so much that someone else is doing even better.
Inequality becomes much more consequential when most people are not getting better off.
I'm happy to date the start of the deterioration earlier - the substance of my point was that the status quo cannot hold, and that point isn't affected by when you date the start of that era.
A bit of French number crunching, comparing first round 2017 with first round 2022.
- Macron increased his first round lead over Le Pen by 1.5%, so a small first round swing in Macron's favour. - Swing from right of centre candidates to left of centre candidates was around 6%, 48-28 -> 40-32. Drop on right because the Republican vote was not fully compensated, rise on left because Greens fully balanced Socialist losses, whilst the remainder of the left edged up across the board. - If you include Macron on the left swing is slightly bigger. - That said Melenchon was only up 2.5% again with tiny swings relative to Macron and Le Pen.
So looking at Macron-Le Pen-Melenchon 2022 first round is remarkably similar to 2017.
If you are looking for reasons that 2022 might be different, you are mainly banking on this:
- A substantial drop in the vote for mainstream, comfortably coalitionable parties, from 56 to 40%, including the uncomfortable right rising from 22.5 to 34% (the uncomfortable right vote was just a smidge below Le Pen's second round share last time).
Also, an increased unwillingness on the part of left wing voters to hold their noses and vote for Macron.
The challenge is this for Le Pen. Damaged though Macron is by incumbency, she has to be significantly more transfer friendly than Macron to win and it is tricky to see where her 1.4m vote gain comes from, given transfers broke 80 : 20 for Macron last time. Le Pen needs around a 55 : 45 win on transfers this time, depending on turnout.
I don't think Macron runs away with this, but I can't quite see which blocs turn over his lead from:
2.5m Zemmour voters (heavily Le Pen -> LP 500k lead) 2.25m very traditional core Republican and Socialist voters (quite heavily Macron -> level) 1.8m alternative centre right voters (slightly Le Pen -> 300k LP lead) 10.5m hard leftists and greens
So, Le Pen has to defend a small.lead in the few 100k range amongst 10 million leftists.
Did you see this poll?
Macron is only getting a third of Melenchon's vote. The election will be won and lost on how many of the remaining Melenchon voters who won't vote for Macron can be persuaded to press the button marked 'do not press'.
My French tenses aren't what they used to be, was that poll done after yesterday's result?
Comments
Craig Murray (who's no fan of Sturgeon) supports it:
Going through the 6 monthly twitter storm of people being shocked at my views on gender, even though they have never changed.
I believe people should be treated as they wish to be treated. I support the principle of self-ID. I detest intolerance and demonisation of trans people.
Particular extreme situations (elite sport, male sexual offenders etc.) call for special consideration but should not form the general principle.
And to concentrate on them is to cast the debate in terms of trans people being perverts or cheats; the very large majority are not.
"Opinion research tells us that the public is sympathetic to trans people, and wishes to be kind, but has concerns about certain issues such as the safety of women in single sex spaces and especially the fairness of trans women competing in elite women’s sports. Our laws already allow for sensible balances to be struck to meet these concerns: exemptions to the Equality Act allow single sex spaces to be protected, trans women prisoners to be placed in special wings, and sports bodies to set rules which may exclude trans competitors. Calm explanation of the facts and discussion on the right boundaries of these compromises is needed."
Huge Paris v. rest of France split.
I have to be careful. But I can sensationally reveal that, retiring just after noon, we decide… to have our sandwiches first. There’s tea and instant coffee on a table in the corner. And I have brought some Percy Pigs to share.
Once lunch is over, we get down to business. Victor volunteers to be our foreman, because he’s served on three juries before and so has experience of deliberations, and we unanimously agree we’re happy with him acting as our chairperson.
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/the-trial-secrets-of-jury-service-deliberations-part-three-266026
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1513331072007909379
That was one of the things that struck me in that bizarre meeting of Putin with his most senior advisers. Hopefully once a generation of men who came of age in the time of the KGB have departed the scene Russia will be able to move on. Without wanting to sound callous hopefully the vodka can do its work and nature will eventually take its course.
Hence already more Pecresse than Melenchon voters are backing Macron.
There is an argument if Melenchon voters lent their votes to Le Pen they would at least defeat liberal Capitalism by ousting Macron.
They could then aim for a runoff between Melenchon Socialism and Le Pen's statist Nationalism in 2027
The west/east left/right French split has almost gone (after centuries?)
Outside Paris, Macron does well in Brittany, the Loire, obscure bits of Lozere/Aveyron, Lyon. Melenchon has the Pyrenees and the DOM-TOM
Le Pen wins everywhere else - even in the east
My grandmother was a close friend of Mrs Kerensky, the wife (separated by the time I met her) of the moderate Menshevik leader who tried to introduce democracy to Russia in 1917. The mother said that her understanding (she'd not lived in Russia herself) was that Kerensky was a decent, liberal-minded man, but most Russians felt, after 3 years of war and economic crisis, that it was stupefyingly out of touch to be pondering bills of rights and forms of elections. The Bolsheviks promised "peace and bread", and that sounded much more relevant to a lot of people. I don't think we've got to that stage of desperation, and I expect Macron to win, but it's probably true that "vote for the democrat against the authoritarian" is no longer the automatic election-winner that we'd like to think.
Consider - I nearly bought some agricultural land in Marden, Kent. £7k an acre.
It would be fairly easy to put a million pounds worth of domestic property on each acre.
All the government would have to do to increase tax revenue on such land by multiple orders of magnitude would be to grant planning permission…..
What presents as Gender dysphoria on the other hand may be internalised homophobia - and banning discussing it with young adults for example may lead to mis-diagnosis and potentially ruinous treatment paths.
It’s notable that historically trans people tended to be m to f, and tended to present later in life. What’s giving some pause for thought is the recent significant increase in young F to M patients who may also have other conditions (eg autism) - it’s poorly understood and there’s too ideology bound up in some of the discussions.
Racing does not come into it
Look back over the last 200 years of British history, we built the railways, the motorways, created the NHS, built Concorde and the channel tunnel.
Now, everything seems small and small fry and politicians seem to have both little vision, and little power. No big plans and even the ones we have (HS2, or Heathrows 3rd runway) are bogged down in endless debate.
Now I don't know if those things are ultimately good, but we've decided to do them, we should do them, and get on with it.
Very hard to predict that one side will start channeling the spirit of Generalissimo Lopez of Paraguay. Particularly when they had shown previous evidence of brutally effective semi-competence.
NEW THREAD
If people are not following the law, then that is a matter for the Police, and in an NHS context their professional bodies.
Ultimately, I think voter discontentment and the rise of populism has three causes. Low productivity growth, an ageing population and a loss of memory about what populism led to last time we tried it in Europe. The first problem we could try to fix but it won't be easy. The second problem is even harder to fix. The third problem may be insoluble. Perhaps populism is one of those diseases you need to catch occasionally to get immunity, although it might kill you in the process.
PS: Who demonises trans people , that is just whataboutery dog whistling
What growth has been delivered has been captured by the 1%.
This is even more the case in the UK, which since 2010 has fallen increasingly behind the growth vanguard, albeit masked by house price inflation which has kept a certain demographic happy.
In theory we should therefore have lots of fun “catch-up” to do, but that would require a serious re-examination of taboo topics around demography, planning and housing, regional development, infrastructure, consumption versus investment, brexit etc.
There are no easy answers, not least because inflation has now entered the mix.
Trans conversion therapy, channel 4 privatisation, walkabouts in kiev and even the chancellor’s tax status have nothing to do with the above.
Inequality becomes much more consequential when most people are not getting better off.
I'm happy to date the start of the deterioration earlier - the substance of my point was that the status quo cannot hold, and that point isn't affected by when you date the start of that era.