There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
I'm glad, at least for now, in the UK abortion and gun controls are not on the political agenda, the former is a conscience issue whereas any party that tries to undo the Dunblane laws is going to end up polling zero.
Despite the Trump/Johnson comparisons, our two polities remain really quite different to one another - thankfully. We have our own obsessions, but at least ours are house prices and the NHS, not guns and the Old Testament.
I don't think that these American culture wars are going to finish the US off, but it's going to become a looser confederacy over time: the population will still wave the same flag, it's just that they'll have very different interpretations of what it means. The extreme difficulty of gaining enough control in Washington to pass contentious federal legislation - control of the Presidency, the House, and sixty votes in the Senate all at once - plus the strong majority on the Supreme Court for unpicking past case law and returning as much authority as possible to the states, will see to that.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
There isn't total sexual freedom - we have laws on rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, minimum age of consent etc (all of which laws I support - total sexual freedom in that sense would be a bad thing).
We do have pretty much total freedom on what two (or more) people judged to be capable of consent are able to do together. I'm in favour of that.
So, what would you like rolled back? I'm not looking to get into a fight with you - you have a right to an opinion that's different to mine (and to mainstream opinion). I'm genuinely interested. Are we talking same sex marriage, civil partnerships, same sex relationships at all, heterosexual relationships outside marriage? Other things?
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
Boris must be thinking "All this makes me seem like a raving lefty by comparison".
Given this, the rise of the right in France and the conservative voter strike here, its almost as if the West's Overton Window is shifting.
November 2022 is the next litmus test. And boy what a test.
... so Tiverton and Honiton proves that the Tories need to be MORE far to the right?
It absolutely does. Do you really think tory voters stayed at home because taxes are too low? inflation is too low? the state is too small? Immigration is too low? The government isn't woke enough?
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
Boris must be thinking "All this makes me seem like a raving lefty by comparison".
Given this, the rise of the right in France and the conservative voter strike here, its almost as if the West's Overton Window is shifting.
November 2022 is the next litmus test. And boy what a test.
... so Tiverton and Honiton proves that the Tories need to be MORE far to the right?
It absolutely does. Do you really think tory voters stayed at home because taxes are too low? inflation is too low? the state is too small? Immigration is too low? The government isn't woke enough?
Please do push for the Tories to lurch to the right; it can only make their demise more decisive.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
An incel speaks.
lol i love the ad hominem attacks pal when you have no arguments
The remark I was responding to was so demented that I am uncertain what an argument to the contrary would even look like. There was an involuntarily gay Christian bloke who used to post here who projected his hatred of his own sexuality by exaggerated demands that the state should interfere in everyone else's. You are from the same stable.
mate its quite possible the sexual revolution will be rolled back....you are so blinded by woke ideology you may not see it coming
I am not your mate. Nor, I now very strongly believe, is anyone else. Incel.
you have the maturity of a 5 year old lol...give me some arguments in favour of the sexual revolution....oh you have none
Wrong way round, what needs justifying is continued obedience to a bunch of prehistoric middle Eastern religious shibboleths from the people who also brought us the no shellfish or ham sandwiches rules
You are saying a lot, but all we are hearing is: I can't get laid, with overtones of The Lord hates me for lusting after [not going to speculate on what] flesh.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Its won by pointing at the blatantly ridiculous stuff and getting the broad mass of the public to laugh at it and say no more of that. Not by the Dorries tactics of seeking out matters to be equally ridiculous on.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
It's an odd belief, which leads to odder conclusions, but as you say, it's a belief.
What it's not is any kind of legal principle under the US Constitution - until the new religious legislators on the bench so decided.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Three of the judges on the SCOTUS are Trump picks
I bet he's loving this.
All he did was fill the vacancies that arose in his term. It's not his fault that RBG was stubborn and selfish.
Trump faced a storm of liberal criticism for his picks. He toughed it out. That is what he will claim.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Fascinating times to live in America, thank God I am not a citizen and merely an interested observer.
There’s a long-standing Tory shibboleth that if only the British economy were “more American”, by which they mean less regulated, then it would deliver stronger growth.
Yet when I look at the patchworked, litigious complexity of American life, I don’t see less regulation at all.
I think the Russians have given up on the more overt trolls, and inserted a more subtle one. Their intent is the same, to increase division irrespective of why.
I think Gary has re-trained and come back a bit more sophisticated in his attempts at blending in. Seems to always take a day and about thirty-odd posts to fall apart.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
I'm glad, at least for now, in the UK abortion and gun controls are not on the political agenda, the former is a conscience issue whereas any party that tries to undo the Dunblane laws is going to end up polling zero.
Despite the Trump/Johnson comparisons, our two polities remain really quite different to one another - thankfully. We have our own obsessions, but at least ours are house prices and the NHS, not guns and the Old Testament.
I don't think that these American culture wars are going to finish the US off, but it's going to become a looser confederacy over time: the population will still wave the same flag, it's just that they'll have very different interpretations of what it means. The extreme difficulty of gaining enough control in Washington to pass contentious federal legislation - control of the Presidency, the House, and sixty votes in the Senate all at once - plus the strong majority on the Supreme Court for unpicking past case law and returning as much authority as possible to the states, will see to that.
It should also be noted only 23 out of 50 US States have Republican governors and Republican controlled state legislatures.
So 27 States ie a majority, will almost certainly still stay pro choice even despite this SC ruling. Probably Florida too if Crist wins in November
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
Boris facing night of the long knives, probably Sunday, expect a resignation on Monday evening. United States heaven help us. Biden needs to increase the number of Supreme Court Judges with non partisan members.
It has made clear abortion will now be decided by the American people via their elected representatives not the Supreme Court. So the pro life states, especially in the South and Bible Belt, can respect the rights of the unborn in their legislation.
The coastal pro choice states will likely largely stay as was
The corollary is that abortion rights will become an election issue in each state, which might stir things up more than expected by either side.
The SC has returned the matter to where it belongs: voters and legislators. Exactly where is lies in the UK. In that sense it is not a conservative judgement but a liberal pro-democracy one.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
not talking about you mate but society as a whole...try and think beyond the personal
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
I guess we can now expect some rightwing loon like Patel to announce that this reform in America is just what we need here.
To let the States legislate on social issues as they see fit, rather than a blanket Federal law that was a poor decision in the first place?
There's a certain irony that the same Justices who overturn Roe v Wade to let the states decide on abortion, are also the same Justices who have overturned a century old concealed carry law in New York to let the Supreme Court decide what happens there.
The High Court has given Arron Banks permission to proceed with an appeal against his libel claim loss to Carole Cadwalladr. Banks appealed the verdict on five counts, with Justice Steyn today granting appeal permission on one count she claimed has a “real prospect of success” – on whether the threshold for “serious harm” inflicted by Cadwalladr’s TED talk needed to be reassessed since Banks had previously proved it.
Justice Steyn herself added: “I am going to grant permission. It does raise clearly an issue of law that has not been determined previously. There is a real prospect of success on that ground”…
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
Griswold, possibly, as that also relies on the right to privacy. But Lawrence and Obergefell both rely on the 14th Amendment, and the text of that seems pretty clear.
He's asking for someone to ask him to rule on the Fourteenth Amendment.
Isn’t that him saying this ruling does NOT affect other rights like same sex marriage?
But IANAL, as they say
The legal rationale (such as it is) of his decision argues otherwise. An otherwise unsupported statement that, notwithstanding that logic, Griswold is unaffected, carries no real legal weight.
And as we now see, stare decisis means absolutely nothing to the new majority on the court, who are quite happy to overturn the precedent of half a century, if they decide they don't like it. (Incidentally revealing themselves a perjurers in their confirmation hearings, but whatever.)
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
not talking about you mate but society as a whole...try and think beyond the personal
I like to live and let live. You should try it rather than trying to interfere with other people's lives.
You don't like Love Island? Then don't watch it. It's not difficult.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Three of the judges on the SCOTUS are Trump picks
I bet he's loving this.
All he did was fill the vacancies that arose in his term. It's not his fault that RBG was stubborn and selfish.
Trump faced a storm of liberal criticism for his picks. He toughed it out. That is what he will claim.
For the record, I am pro-abortion and I would not want to live in a state where it was illegal. The film Vera Drake shows what happens when abortion is banned and its barbaric.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Well I can think of one former MP who would have benefitted from internet porn not being easily accessible.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I generally skip your posts because of your habit of spamming the same thing in repeated lengthy posts - there must have been half a dozen in a very short time last night, all saying much the same thing, in the manner of an unusually verbose troll.
It's up to you what you post and how often, of course, but maybe less would have more impact?
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
Really good psephologists are much more concise than this. e.g. "Satisfactory but not exciting victory for Labour in Wakefield".
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
not talking about you mate but society as a whole...try and think beyond the personal
I'm glad, at least for now, in the UK abortion and gun controls are not on the political agenda, the former is a conscience issue whereas any party that tries to undo the Dunblane laws is going to end up polling zero.
Despite the Trump/Johnson comparisons, our two polities remain really quite different to one another - thankfully. We have our own obsessions, but at least ours are house prices and the NHS, not guns and the Old Testament.
I don't think that these American culture wars are going to finish the US off, but it's going to become a looser confederacy over time: the population will still wave the same flag, it's just that they'll have very different interpretations of what it means. The extreme difficulty of gaining enough control in Washington to pass contentious federal legislation - control of the Presidency, the House, and sixty votes in the Senate all at once - plus the strong majority on the Supreme Court for unpicking past case law and returning as much authority as possible to the states, will see to that.
The gun decision just removed authority from the states, so I'm not convinced by that last bit.
And of course states will attempt to enforce their anti-abortion laws extra territorially. Some have already started attempts to introduce legal liability for abortion providers outside of their own territory.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
not talking about you mate but society as a whole...try and think beyond the personal
Pal, mate, you’re such a chummy sort!
It’s a sterling effort but just trying too hard with the “mate” and “pal” - but an upgrade on John Smith the other day.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
He cant even use a shift key, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Neither of those bother me because I never watch them. Next?
not talking about you mate but society as a whole...try and think beyond the personal
I've never quite understood why there is basically no popular clamour for the successful bits of the US to secede from the crap bits.
I realise "American exceptionalism" and all that, but surely if you're from California (population slightly smaller than Spain), it must grate just a little that you have the same number of senators as Wyoming (population slightly larger than Leicester)?
If California is that “successful” how come so many of them are moving to Texas? Have you visited the West Coast recently?
While the population of California dipped in 2021, it has still doubled in my lifetime. And will almost certainly grow again this year.
(And don't forget that Texas has had an absolutely massive oil boom in the last decade. Cities like Lubbock, Midland and Odessa - none of which you've probably even heard of - have grown by the population of Wyoming and Rhode Island in the last decade.)
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
Well I can think of one former MP who would have benefitted from internet porn not being easily accessible.
Settles the argument:
Sexual revolution -> internet porn -> Tiverton & Honiton by-election -> hastened demise of Johnson and/or Conservatives at next election -> clear societal benefit
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
I have no issue with Pride Month, so long as we can also have Sloth and Gluttony Months.
It has made clear abortion will now be decided by the American people via their elected representatives not the Supreme Court. So the pro life states, especially in the South and Bible Belt, can respect the rights of the unborn in their legislation.
The coastal pro choice states will likely largely stay as was
The corollary is that abortion rights will become an election issue in each state, which might stir things up more than expected by either side.
The SC has returned the matter to where it belongs: voters and legislators. Exactly where is lies in the UK. In that sense it is not a conservative judgement but a liberal pro-democracy one.
Shame they have not done the same over guns.
Making women's bodily autonomy subject to legislative fiat is hardly liberal. And is majoritarian, rather than democratic.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
I have no issue with Pride Month, so long as we can also have Sloth and Gluttony Months.
Boris facing night of the long knives, probably Sunday, expect a resignation on Monday evening. United States heaven help us. Biden needs to increase the number of Supreme Court Judges with non partisan members.
Statement 1. Citation, and a mountain of salt required.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I generally skip your posts because of your habit of spamming the same thing in repeated lengthy posts - there must have been half a dozen in a very short time last night, all saying much the same thing, in the manner of an unusually verbose troll.
It's up to you what you post and how often, of course, but maybe less would have more impact?
There are lots of people who have a habit of saying the same thing repeatedly. There are many worse culprits.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
Is it beneficial for society that:
(a) you should choose what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home or (b) they should choose
Tough one, that.
Ultimately, the bar for the State prohibiting behaviour needs to be a high one. Because otherwise - one day - they will come for something you passionately believe in.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
"Is it beneficial for society as a whole" - yes. Several of us have answered your binary question. You disagree and that's your choice. But as you are in a little puce minority it doesn't really matter does it?
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
ah the old saudi arabia trope...you do realise there is a middle ground between the us and saudia arabia....and yes the sexual revolution will be rolled back for the simple reason societies as decadent as ours start to collapse which is what is happening now
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
I have no issue with Pride Month, so long as we can also have Sloth and Gluttony Months.
Nadine Dorries and the other collaborators in the UK culture war can feck right off.
It’s a two way war, pal
Republicans v women.
pal.
It’s not outrageous to believe that all human life begins at conception, and must therefore be protected as much as a baby
I don’t agree but I respect that sincere belief honestly held by many in the USA
Trouble is SOME right wingers have hijacked this cause as a way to monster the Left, as they believe the Left is bent on destroying the America they know
It’s a war. Pal.
Three of the judges on the SCOTUS are Trump picks
I bet he's loving this.
All he did was fill the vacancies that arose in his term. It's not his fault that RBG was stubborn and selfish.
It's not Trump's fault that Mitch McConnell refused hearings when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, but nor was that Ruth Bader Ginsburg's fault.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
ah the old saudi arabia trope...you do realise there is a middle ground between the us and saudia arabia....and yes the sexual revolution will be rolled back for the simple reason societies as decadent as ours start to collapse which is what is happening now
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
I'm sorry that you find Pride so threatening. All those people enjoying themselves is difficult to cope with.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
"There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get."
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
Boris facing night of the long knives, probably Sunday, expect a resignation on Monday evening. United States heaven help us. Biden needs to increase the number of Supreme Court Judges with non partisan members.
Packing the court is not exactly going to calm anything down.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
Really good psephologists are much more concise than this. e.g. "Satisfactory but not exciting victory for Labour in Wakefield".
Rubbish. It’s good, it’s bad, or it’s middling. Perfectly concise and not at all verbosely
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
ah the old saudi arabia trope...you do realise there is a middle ground between the us and saudia arabia....and yes the sexual revolution will be rolled back for the simple reason societies as decadent as ours start to collapse which is what is happening now
Ah, the capital letters giveaway. Oh those Russians!
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
Is it beneficial for society that:
(a) you should choose what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home or (b) they should choose
Tough one, that.
Ultimately, the bar for the State prohibiting behaviour needs to be a high one. Because otherwise - one day - they will come for something you passionately believe in.
i dont think anyones arguing for cameras in peoples homes so your point doesnt stand
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
Really good psephologists are much more concise than this. e.g. "Satisfactory but not exciting victory for Labour in Wakefield".
Rubbish. It’s good, it’s bad, or it’s middling. Perfectly concise and not at all verbosely
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
"There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get."
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
I'm working on the assumption that we don't get a Farage government or worse. Mainstream Tory / Labour governments are only going to start cracking down on sexual freedoms if that is what society demands.
The problem for the Mr Angry type is that the majority of the people younger than them are more permissive than they are. So the longer we go on the more permissive society gets. And it doesn't entrench the kind of partisan / societal foaming that America suffers from. It was a Conservative coalition that made gay marriage legal...
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
I have no issue with Pride Month, so long as we can also have Sloth and Gluttony Months.
In the UK, Lust doesn't qualify for a full month; just a nice sunny weekend in July.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
ah the old saudi arabia trope...you do realise there is a middle ground between the us and saudia arabia....and yes the sexual revolution will be rolled back for the simple reason societies as decadent as ours start to collapse which is what is happening now
Ah, the capital letters giveaway. Oh those Russians!
Yes, the decadent west will collapse. The rodina will succeed because it is promoting traditional family values like genocide and rape as a weapon of war.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
"There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get."
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
I'm working on the assumption that we don't get a Farage government or worse. Mainstream Tory / Labour governments are only going to start cracking down on sexual freedoms if that is what society demands.
The problem for the Mr Angry type is that the majority of the people younger than them are more permissive than they are. So the longer we go on the more permissive society gets. And it doesn't entrench the kind of partisan / societal foaming that America suffers from. It was a Conservative coalition that made gay marriage legal...
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
Can't speak for anyone else, but I generally skip your posts because of your habit of spamming the same thing in repeated lengthy posts - there must have been half a dozen in a very short time last night, all saying much the same thing, in the manner of an unusually verbose troll.
It's up to you what you post and how often, of course, but maybe less would have more impact?
Nonsense. If people put words in your mouth or misrepresent you they must be rebutted straight away, is all I’m doing.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
As for why...
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
i wasnt talking about criminalising homosexuality mate for example roll back of the sexual revolution could mean for example getting rid of Pride month
Why? Seems a perfectly harmless celebration to me. Quite colourful too!
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
"There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get."
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
I'm working on the assumption that we don't get a Farage government or worse. Mainstream Tory / Labour governments are only going to start cracking down on sexual freedoms if that is what society demands.
The problem for the Mr Angry type is that the majority of the people younger than them are more permissive than they are. So the longer we go on the more permissive society gets. And it doesn't entrench the kind of partisan / societal foaming that America suffers from. It was a Conservative coalition that made gay marriage legal...
and then society collapses the end
Indeed: 2014 - the UK allows deviants to marry 2022 - mother Russia launches the Special Military Operation to rape the nazi out of Ukrainian girls 2023 - Britain collapses because poofters and gen z non-binary idiots watch too much love island. Lord Lebedev leads a patriotic front to restore Britain's pride by having the liberals locked up.
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
Really good psephologists are much more concise than this. e.g. "Satisfactory but not exciting victory for Labour in Wakefield".
Rubbish. It’s good, it’s bad, or it’s middling. Perfectly concise and not at all verbosely
The years before the English Civil War were uncannily like this
The King does some provocative thing
Parliament reacts by being even more provocative
The King returns fire with something outrageous
Parliament is unfazed and does something REALLY outrageous
The King goes crazy
Parliament howls at the moon
And thus in a few short years England fell from normal, fairly calm Christian European country to brutal civil war, tens of thousands dead, and a king with his head in a basket
At each stage English people must have thought: Well this is bonkers, but surely it stops now. It did not
Or you could look wider and say something like this:
Compared with the 30 Years War in continental Europe, or the French revolution and its consequences events in Britain and Ireland from the 1620s onwards amounted to a little local difficulty during which time we went from a state which tortured and disembowelled people because of their beliefs to the beginnings of the liberal state, inventing as it went along a constitutional monarchy subject to parliament which is still both around and popular.
During the upheaval religious and secular developments began to emerge which would comprehend and campaign about the wickedness of slavery, a desperate blind spot of the 17th century.
Significant civil strife is now more likely than not, in America
I don’t see how else this ends. It is a fight to the death
to be fair its time parts of the sexual revolution were rolled back and its got to start somewhere
Ok, I've already made an arse of myself once today, by taking a joke as serious comment, so help me out here - should there be a at the end of that statement?
If not, which bits, exactly?
is total sexual freedom beneficial for society or not...answer me that...not talking about for women or men but society as a whole
Broadly speaking what consenting adults do is no business of society, state or church.
but is it beneficial for society as a whole...you havent answered my question so i think we can take it you can agree its negative for society as a whole even if beneficial for some individuals
I'm sorry I wasn't plain enough.
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
thats not an answer...do you care about society pal
I'm glad, at least for now, in the UK abortion and gun controls are not on the political agenda, the former is a conscience issue whereas any party that tries to undo the Dunblane laws is going to end up polling zero.
Despite the Trump/Johnson comparisons, our two polities remain really quite different to one another - thankfully. We have our own obsessions, but at least ours are house prices and the NHS, not guns and the Old Testament.
I don't think that these American culture wars are going to finish the US off, but it's going to become a looser confederacy over time: the population will still wave the same flag, it's just that they'll have very different interpretations of what it means. The extreme difficulty of gaining enough control in Washington to pass contentious federal legislation - control of the Presidency, the House, and sixty votes in the Senate all at once - plus the strong majority on the Supreme Court for unpicking past case law and returning as much authority as possible to the states, will see to that .
The right’s propensity to remove freedoms and undo democracy is very notable on both sides of the Atlantic.
There were two or three people on here in the early hours trying to troll that Wakefield was a. bad result for Labour. Utter rubbish.
Wakefield's swing of 12.7% is the seventh largest from Con to Lab at a by-election since 1945.
And the fact that this took place in the Red Wall is what makes it all the more encouraging for Labour.
But what should REALLY send a shiver down tory spines is that both by-elections show massive tactical voting, as @MikeSmithson has pointed out.
The next General Election will be a disaster for the tories if they keep on this path. That 11% national opinion polling Labour lead yesterday masks tactical voting. The tories are in for a mauling.
See Michael Thresher's excellent piece on Sky News if you don't believe me:
The hot takes from @MoonRabbit in particular were completely bizarre. I assume it was sleep deprivation.
And the attacks keep coming. What is your actual complaint?
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
Really good psephologists are much more concise than this. e.g. "Satisfactory but not exciting victory for Labour in Wakefield".
Rubbish. It’s good, it’s bad, or it’s middling. Perfectly concise and not at all verbosely
I reckon we're about three postings away from "but what about International Men's Day??!11!11lolwtflbqtiabbq"
but what about International Men's Day??!!!
That was last weekend, Fathers’ Day - a recent creation of the greetings card industry.
Nope it's November 19th - the scary bit is that thanks to Richard Herring answering that question continually on International Women's Day I knew that without checking.
“Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.”
let the roll back of the sexual revolution commence
Generally people calling for the "roll back of the sexual revolution" aren't getting any.
another ad hominem attack....you have no arguments pal
Which parts of the 'sexual revolution' do you think should be rolled back? What specific liberties?
has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole answer me that...the fact you cant answer that question tells me all i need to know
Yes it has.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
so love island and non stop internet porn is societal progress....ok its a view..one which many non western countries would disagree with
If only they would let you beat your girlfriend and spit at shirt lifters. Like in the good old days.
no arguments again do better mate im here and waiting
You asked "has the sexual revolution since the 1960s been beneficial for society as a whole" and I answered "yes".
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
"There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get."
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
I'm working on the assumption that we don't get a Farage government or worse. Mainstream Tory / Labour governments are only going to start cracking down on sexual freedoms if that is what society demands.
The problem for the Mr Angry type is that the majority of the people younger than them are more permissive than they are. So the longer we go on the more permissive society gets. And it doesn't entrench the kind of partisan / societal foaming that America suffers from. It was a Conservative coalition that made gay marriage legal...
You may not have noticed, but there are plenty of Ms Angry types as well. Farage shows that a major change can essentially be forced by a small group, or even one man - whether someone think that's a negative or positive change is very much up to the individual.
One of the good things about UK politics is how close the two main parties actually are on many issues - at times it seems as though we really do argue about whether boiled eggs should be broken on the pointed or blunt end.
It may not remain that way, though I hope it does.
Christ, guns everywhere and a return to back street abortions. America is in a grim place. Especially as a majority of voters don't want either policy. I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.
Comments
I done all the number crunching upfront to set Labour a fair bar in advance, as that is the only way to do this properly. Know up front what is good bad and middling so the spin teams can’t drive it afterwards. (Sorry if I’m addressing the spin team, but I’m out to declare war on everybody’s spin team… except maybe libdems).
What was a fair bar? Labour lost last time for first time in 80 years with 40% so they needed to clear 40%. The Tory got 47% last time so they needed to clear that. Not if it’s GE night though, When you will take any win. Because that’s a GE, with both sets of votes out, this is mid term slump election for one party’s vote staying home so the bar has to be a little higher - however last time someone won this seat with over 50% was 1997, so although a labour seat for long time, not for a while with big % of vote, fair bar here was over 50% but didn’t need to go high as the 57% in 97.
But this is a mid term by election against a party on ropes who got 47% last time, so 50 to 55% is not unreasonable as bar for a good result is it?
So I did maths. 40% of 27205 makes 10882 equivalent to the abysmal losing vote Labour got last time, they need many thousands more than this before they can call it a good night. 13602 is 50% anything above that I would have called it good. As they were reading it out I was hoping to hear 14K, as in a very good result. If they knocked it out the park I would have instantly called it. It came in 13100 I instantly knew was middling for a by election, not even 50%. I called it right. Instantly.
You can’t knock me here, but not a shred of doubt in my mind I’m doing this right. Unless you explain my mid term by election bar was set too high or my maths wrong, what’s basis of your complaint?
Nor would I knock Labour as much if it was a one off, they have had good results elsewhere in Red Wall battles recently, but they haven’t, despite everything going on this year, this middling result is about as good as it’s got for Labour in red Wall for a while.
Electoral Things take a while to unwind, don’t get too excited or complacent is all I’m saying. Being the psephologist ice queen I am.
I don't think that these American culture wars are going to finish the US off, but it's going to become a looser confederacy over time: the population will still wave the same flag, it's just that they'll have very different interpretations of what it means. The extreme difficulty of gaining enough control in Washington to pass contentious federal legislation - control of the Presidency, the House, and sixty votes in the Senate all at once - plus the strong majority on the Supreme Court for unpicking past case law and returning as much authority as possible to the states, will see to that.
We do have pretty much total freedom on what two (or more) people judged to be capable of consent are able to do together. I'm in favour of that.
So, what would you like rolled back? I'm not looking to get into a fight with you - you have a right to an opinion that's different to mine (and to mainstream opinion). I'm genuinely interested. Are we talking same sex marriage, civil partnerships, same sex relationships at all, heterosexual relationships outside marriage? Other things?
The answer is yes.
Next question.
Now you see if you can answer which specific parts, which specific liberties, you think should be rolled back.
You are saying a lot, but all we are hearing is: I can't get laid, with overtones of The Lord hates me for lusting after [not going to speculate on what] flesh.
What it's not is any kind of legal principle under the US Constitution - until the new religious legislators on the bench so decided.
There’s a long-standing Tory shibboleth that if only the British economy were “more American”, by which they mean less regulated, then it would deliver stronger growth.
Yet when I look at the patchworked, litigious complexity of American life, I don’t see less regulation at all.
And don’t get me started on the infrastructure.
“People want me to concentrate in the big concerns. We are a government that are going to continue to do some great things.”
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1540350927248494594
So 27 States ie a majority, will almost certainly still stay pro choice even despite this SC ruling. Probably Florida too if Crist wins in November
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_state_legislatures
United States heaven help us. Biden needs to increase the number of Supreme Court Judges with non partisan members.
Shame they have not done the same over guns.
It - and all its ilk - seek to make entertainment out of what are essentially psychologically vulnerable narcissists.
https://order-order.com/2022/06/24/high-court-grants-permission-for-banks-to-appeal-cadwalladr-verdict/
The High Court has given Arron Banks permission to proceed with an appeal against his libel claim loss to Carole Cadwalladr. Banks appealed the verdict on five counts, with Justice Steyn today granting appeal permission on one count she claimed has a “real prospect of success” – on whether the threshold for “serious harm” inflicted by Cadwalladr’s TED talk needed to be reassessed since Banks had previously proved it.
Justice Steyn herself added: “I am going to grant permission. It does raise clearly an issue of law that has not been determined previously. There is a real prospect of success on that ground”…
An otherwise unsupported statement that, notwithstanding that logic, Griswold is unaffected, carries no real legal weight.
And as we now see, stare decisis means absolutely nothing to the new majority on the court, who are quite happy to overturn the precedent of half a century, if they decide they don't like it.
(Incidentally revealing themselves a perjurers in their confirmation hearings, but whatever.)
You don't like Love Island? Then don't watch it. It's not difficult.
I am just looking at some of the evidence.
I never quite understand - especially in 2022 - why merely being out of the country should embolden your enemies.
It's up to you what you post and how often, of course, but maybe less would have more impact?
It has meant that (statistically) unusual but harmless geniuses like Alan Turing can get on with being brilliant, instead of being pushed to suicide.
It means that blackmailers have fewer handles to ply their evil.
It means the state isn't wasting time and money policing what goes on between consenting adults.
More honesty about stuff is generally better than less.
Will that do for starters?
Though taking away from younger generations freedoms they enjoyed is very on-brand for a certain group of baby boomers.
And of course states will attempt to enforce their anti-abortion laws extra territorially. Some have already started attempts to introduce legal liability for abortion providers outside of their own territory.
I can't see Apple expanding its Austin campus any further now that Texas has banned abortion (without exceptions for rape or incest).
It's two Americas. I guess the question is whether they formalise it.
(And don't forget that Texas has had an absolutely massive oil boom in the last decade. Cities like Lubbock, Midland and Odessa - none of which you've probably even heard of - have grown by the population of Wyoming and Rhode Island in the last decade.)
Sexual revolution -> internet porn -> Tiverton & Honiton by-election -> hastened demise of Johnson and/or Conservatives at next election -> clear societal benefit
Glad we got that one sorted
You don't agree and that is your right. But the majority of people in the UK do not have to explain themselves to repressed people like yourself. There isn't going to be any rolling back of the sexual revolution no matter how puce you get. Perhaps moving to a more backwards country would make you happier? Saudi Arabia perhaps - they don't let women drive and behead gayers. You'll be right at home.
And is majoritarian, rather than democratic.
Regarding the Tories: "Has anybody thought maybe it's the drawing board that needs replacing?"
(a) you should choose what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home
or
(b) they should choose
Tough one, that.
Ultimately, the bar for the State prohibiting behaviour needs to be a high one. Because otherwise - one day - they will come for something you passionately believe in.
I would not be so sure, even in this country. Controlling people's sexual relations - who you can and cannot have sex or relationships with - is a powerful form of control. There are obviously some cases where control is necessary - e.g. young people, family members, animals - but aside from that, prescriptive rules give a limited number of people at the top control and power.
And some people quite like power. Often the ones who should be nowhere near it...
This is America.
The problem for the Mr Angry type is that the majority of the people younger than them are more permissive than they are. So the longer we go on the more permissive society gets. And it doesn't entrench the kind of partisan / societal foaming that America suffers from. It was a Conservative coalition that made gay marriage legal...
"Phwoar - what a scorcher!"
the end
It's got f*ck all to do with society and is therefor totally beneficial to society.
2014 - the UK allows deviants to marry
2022 - mother Russia launches the Special Military Operation to rape the nazi out of Ukrainian girls
2023 - Britain collapses because poofters and gen z non-binary idiots watch too much love island. Lord Lebedev leads a patriotic front to restore Britain's pride by having the liberals locked up.
Its so obvious.
Compared with the 30 Years War in continental Europe, or the French revolution and its consequences events in Britain and Ireland from the 1620s onwards amounted to a little local difficulty during which time we went from a state which tortured and disembowelled people because of their beliefs to the beginnings of the liberal state, inventing as it went along a constitutional monarchy subject to parliament which is still both around and popular.
During the upheaval religious and secular developments began to emerge which would comprehend and campaign about the wickedness of slavery, a desperate blind spot of the 17th century.
Bairstow doing his best to knock it out of shape again.
One of the good things about UK politics is how close the two main parties actually are on many issues - at times it seems as though we really do argue about whether boiled eggs should be broken on the pointed or blunt end.
It may not remain that way, though I hope it does.
I guess the lesson is don't have an eighteenth century rule book that is almost impossible to change unless you want to live in the eighteenth century.