I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
But there are, look at East Germany back in the day. I don't see what conclusions you think you're drawing from a sample of one with unspecified if any sporting interests
I don’t think there is a state sponsored effort to get Trans athletes into competition for the glory of Team GB, as there was in the DDR. It raises profound ethical questions and it is the one area of Trans rights I tend to the the reactionary side, but it is not a very common issue.
Tisn't a reactionary position unless you think women are second class citizens.
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
I can think of 4 straight off: weightlifting, swimming, cycling and 2 in rugby.
They may well genuinely have gender dysphoria. Who knows. But that is not, frankly, the point. What is is whether competition can be fair when one - because of their sex - has an in-built physical advantage.
Put it this way, there were women sportswomen in the 1970's who were denied prizes because of the industrial level doping by Russian and Eastern European sports authorities which turned their women into sort of men. That was rightly seen as cheating. Having men - who naturally have the physical advantages which those Russian women were being given chemically - participate in women's sport is also cheating.
It is not "identities" which compete in sport. But bodies
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
Yes, I don't think that is their motivation either.
Personally though I think the swimming authorities decision correct. I don't think governments need get too involved, as this is a role where individual sports should set their own rules in the interests of athlete safety, effective competition and inclusivity.
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
On topic, roughly the same proportion of Dems strongly support as Reps strongly oppose. That hardly looks like electoral Armageddon. Sadly.
So real questions are likely > what is the differential in intensity of feeling & motivation on each side? > what do independents think, and are they breaking one way or the other?
Plus > how does this play out on state-by-state, district-by-district basis for Congress, governor, legislature, judges and other races on 2022 ballot?
Particularly around independents, a more insightful question would be where abortion rights sit in the level of priorities.
There are risks for both parties around the issue. For the GOP, it risks taking away some of the traction they've had in the suburbs off the back of the CRT / trans issues in schools. For the Democrats, the risk would be is it further accelerates the shift of socially conservative Hispanics to the GOP and / or causes friction with parts of the religious Black vote.
Spot on re: inds.
As for rest, that's where rubber hits road re: state & district demographics, economics, issues, politics.
To get banned, will I have to say ????? is a **** and that they should ***** off a **** with a ***** inserted ***** ***** *** *** ***** before ***** with Jude Law and ****-***** Coldplay ****** into ****** for all eternity?
Not Coldplay, you numpty. Radiohead!
Er - that's if you want a ban.
I'm not dissing Radiohead, honest...
I didn't mention Radiohead as that would get a lifetime ban.
I'm surprised no-one's asked why Jude Law is in there....
I would post about the Trans issue, but I have a Trans Step-Son, so will probably end up getting banned, except to say there aren't a group of Male Sports Athletes thinking "Oh I know, I'll pretend to be a Woman so I can get lots of medals!"
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
There a difference between 13 and 50. It’s now unmanageable.
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
Just tell the SNP that's the price for voting for them.
Although they may wonder why you're selling yourself so cheap, of course. I mean, they spent £250 million and counting buying votes in Glasgow...
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
There a difference between 13 and 50. It’s now unmanageable.
I am generally against trans women competing in sports - but it should probably be decided on a sport-by-sport basis. I see no reason why women should not be able to compete with men in motorsports, for instance. Or perhaps horse racing and other jockey sports?
However, I would just point out that most top athletes are freaks of nature: men and women where a set of inherited traits and environmental factors have made them perfect for a sport, or sports. Often they are anthropometrically suited for their sport.
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
There's already a new polymer £50 featuring Alan Turing.
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
There's already a new polymer £50 featuring Alan Turing.
Should be Tommy Flowers. The real genius of Bletchley Park
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
There's already a new polymer £50 featuring Alan Turing.
So the faking of these will be the Imitation Game?
I am generally against trans women competing in sports - but it should probably be decided on a sport-by-sport basis. I see no reason why women should not be able to compete with men in motorsports, for instance. Or perhaps horse racing and other jockey sports?
However, I would just point out that most top athletes are freaks of nature: men and women where a set of inherited traits and environmental factors have made them perfect for a sport, or sports. Often they are anthropometrically suited for their sport.
Michael Phelps being a good example.
I don’t think anyone wants to stop Fallon Sherrock competing at the Darts against the men. What we don’t want is trans women competing in female categories of sports.
I am generally against trans women competing in sports - but it should probably be decided on a sport-by-sport basis. I see no reason why women should not be able to compete with men in motorsports, for instance. Or perhaps horse racing and other jockey sports?
However, I would just point out that most top athletes are freaks of nature: men and women where a set of inherited traits and environmental factors have made them perfect for a sport, or sports. Often they are anthropometrically suited for their sport.
Michael Phelps being a good example.
The issue only arises where strength and shape of body matter. So horse riding, archery, motor sports etc have no issues AFAIK.
Swimming, athletics, cycling, contact sports, weightlifting, boxing etc are different.
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
There a difference between 13 and 50. It’s now unmanageable.
At the moment it is a coalition of rural states bullying the more populous urban states.
States (and countries) are convenient fictions. I know Rhode Island reasonably well, my wife’s from Connecticut, it’s basically a suburb of Boston. And the only reason the two Dakotas outvote California in the Senate is that their now respective state capitals couldn’t decide which would be the capital of a single Dakota, so they made two states from the territory instead of one.
If the Americans could abolish German Lander of significantly greater antiquity and cultural difference to their own, they can do it to their own states.
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
There's already a new polymer £50 featuring Alan Turing.
So the faking of these will be the Imitation Game?
And if you snort cocaine through them, breaking your addiction will be a Halting Problem.
Where in the world can you accidentally land in the right city but the wrong continent?
Are there any others besides Istanbul?
Where exactly does North America become South America? Panama?
And then you have to define “Central America” to add to the confusion.
(Mexico is in North America. But is it also a central American country, or not?)
No, Mexico is not Central America. Many of them would be insulted to be so defined. They are a north American country with a part-Latino, part-native American ancestry
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
There a difference between 13 and 50. It’s now unmanageable.
I think the issue is one of relative state populations. California is home to 40 million people, Wyoming 600,000
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
There a difference between 13 and 50. It’s now unmanageable.
The origin of the US system is basically a copy of our system of the 18th Century, with a President in place of the monarch, Senate in place of the Lords and Representatives in place of the Commons. Senators were appointed by states initially, though some chose by election before it became compulsory over a century later. It was never intended to be fully democratic, but rather to give a voice to different interest groups.
As such it rather fossilises in a lot of 18th Century Enlightenment ideas, good and bad, but is regarded as Holy Writ and unchangeable, apart frome the highly laborious process of ammendments by a super-majority.
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
You are decidely generous about the global importance of the things that go on in our funny little island!
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
Where in the world can you accidentally land in the right city but the wrong continent?
Are there any others besides Istanbul?
Where exactly does North America become South America? Panama?
Possibly in the Urals or Caucases, depending on where the line is drawn.
I’ve been thinking about that Caucasian divide between Asia and Europe. Having just been there
It is in some senses a fiction, but not entirely. Eg Georgia really does feel like a European country, exotic and different and remote from most of Europe, but European. Like a quirky northern Greece maybe.
Armenia definitely feels more like Asia. A mix of Israel and northern Syria
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
It’s a nice idea, but far too logical. The opposition to abortion isn’t about embryos: it’s about controlling women. That’s it’s raison d’être. If we were seahorses and men gave birth, none of this would’ve happened.
I am generally against trans women competing in sports - but it should probably be decided on a sport-by-sport basis. I see no reason why women should not be able to compete with men in motorsports, for instance. Or perhaps horse racing and other jockey sports?
However, I would just point out that most top athletes are freaks of nature: men and women where a set of inherited traits and environmental factors have made them perfect for a sport, or sports. Often they are anthropometrically suited for their sport.
Michael Phelps being a good example.
Sport isn't fair as such. The winners are always likely to have some sort of unusual advantage. That is the nature of a competition to find the fastest, strongest or toughest. The height distribution of cricket fast bowlers is very different to the height distribution of society as a whole. Short people all out of luck again.
So it is tempting to say that we shouldn't have men's sport or women's sport, but just sport, and let whoever compete who can. And, in some sports, this is what is happening - darts and horse-racing jockeys are the obvious examples that come to mind.
However, in practice, this would mean that for many sports no woman would ever have a chance. The women's 100m record is 10.49s, while the Olympic qualification standard for the men's event is 10.05s. If you want women to participate then for many sports they need to have their own event.
If x% of the male population become female then, inevitably, they will come to dominate female sporting competition. Why then should any woman bother to participate? You might as well not have a female category of competition at all.
On Mike's comment re California and Wyoming having the same Senate votes - Im not saying something new but it was a deliberate design of the system to make sure the big states didn't dominate the small ones. Arguably, if it didn't exist, there's a question whether the USA would have come into being.
One interesting point (at least to me) is that big states NEVER want to be subdivided, certainly not without VERY serious agitation from sections wishing to separate.
> Virginia the largest state in 1789, agreed to separation of Kentucky County (1792) however it was inevitable KY was going to go it's own way; indeed VA like other states had ceded (or soon would) vast acres in western land claims (west of the Appalachians).
> Old Dominion did retain trans-Appalachian turf that became West Virginia (1863) but this was during the Civil War as a war measure, and Confederate Virginia could do nothing but watch it happen; and by this time VA was no longer a big state.
> Massachusetts consented to separation of District of Maine (1820) but again this appears virtually inevitable, given that Maine and (rest of) Mass were (and still are) separated by New Hampshire, and fact that ME was viable on its own, and wanted to go.
> BUT note that statehood for Maine was part of the Missouri Compromise limiting but also authorizing spread of slavery west of the Mississippi River; indeed Maine statehood was balanced by that of new slave state of Missouri.
> Texas famously entered the Union via a treaty between US and Republic of Texas, which guaranteed new slave state right to divide itself into IIRC five states, thus increasing potential clout of slaveocracy in US Senate. However, neither before nor after Civil War has voluntary subdivision of the Lone Star State ever been in the cards.
> California entered the Union in a hurry and immediate aftermath of the Mexican-American War, the California "Republic" (barely amounting to a legal fiction) and subsequent Gold Rush. Statehood was part of the Comprise of 1850 that threw out Missouri Compromise and expanded slavery into all territories BUT admitted CA as a free state. Note that many, esp. southerners, suggested dividing (Alta) California into North and South, by extending the old Missouri Comp. line to the Pacific, and making the South a slave state. However, this idea was killed, by anti-slavery Northerners AND by . . . wait for it . . . Californians. Meaning the American newcomers, but also including most of the Latino Californios. Because folks in CA thought that being divided would DIMINISH their state NOT increase the interest of the separate parts OR themselves.
American generally believe that bigger is better. Even when we pretend otherwise!
Residents of big states are proud of the fact.
Residents of small states get this. And look for ways to protect - and feel big - themselves.
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.
The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.
BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
I think this is complete bollocks. You expect them to be that knowledgeable, that Marchiavellian, that competent? Which Conservative Party have you been watching lately? Also, by most accounts, they didn’t expect to lose Tiverton.
I concur. Blair did The Grid. Johnson does Making It Up As You Go Along.
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
I think this is complete bollocks. You expect them to be that knowledgeable, that Marchiavellian, that competent? Which Conservative Party have you been watching lately? Also, by most accounts, they didn’t expect to lose Tiverton.
I concur. Blair did The Grid. Johnson does Making It Up As You Go Along.
I'm looking forward to the Sunday papers.
No doubt some outlandish red meat bollocks will then have to be thrown up on Monday morning to try and divert yet again.
Without wanting to interrupt the CHB fireworks, I noted a post earlier that said we were about to lose £20 and £50 notes. I believe it is the former *paper* ones that are about to me demonetised. The Polymer £20 will stay.
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
There's already a new polymer £50 featuring Alan Turing.
So the faking of these will be the Imitation Game?
And if you snort cocaine through them, breaking your addiction will be a Halting Problem.
If you drop them while counting it’s a Stack Dump.
I’ve had a weird, tiring week which has done my head in a bit and left me feeling anxious and down about the state of the world, and this little exchange (plus the travelogue above) cheered me up a bit. Never lose your sense of humour PB.
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
I think this is complete bollocks. You expect them to be that knowledgeable, that Marchiavellian, that competent? Which Conservative Party have you been watching lately? Also, by most accounts, they didn’t expect to lose Tiverton.
I concur. Blair did The Grid. Johnson does Making It Up As You Go Along.
I'm looking forward to the Sunday papers.
No doubt some outlandish red meat bollocks will then have to be thrown up on Monday morning to try and divert yet again.
Are you suggesting his next effort will be something to do with faggotts?
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
It’s a nice idea, but far too logical. The opposition to abortion isn’t about embryos: it’s about controlling women. That’s it’s raison d’être. If we were seahorses and men gave birth, none of this would’ve happened.
I'm not an anti-abortionist, but I don't for a moment think that all the people I know who are anti-abortion, many of them women, believe this is about 'control'. It's the sort of claim, massively over generalised, that seeks to prevent intelligent discussion.
The debate is discombobulated by those who think that there is only one possible view, and those who ascribe hidden motives and desires to those they disagree with. ("Women controllers!!" "Baby murderers!!") Can't see how any of this helps.
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.
The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.
BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
Child support laws already exist in all states and most are pretty stringent. This isn't the basis for any sort of détente on the issue.
From Opinium, a 5 point swing in forced choice lab gov vs con gov to 46-35 (was 42 36 2 weeks ago) suggests maybe tactical voting message has filtered through, but tgere is much more......
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.
Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why!
Am beginning to suspect, that release of SCOTUS invalidation of Row v Wade was deliberately timed (but how? and who?) to give aid & comfort to Boris Johnson & Co, by distracting our British cousins (not exactly heavy lifting) with exciting news from Across the Pond. And away from the Tory by-election bust-up.
Certainly has had that affect on PB. And the rest of UK media?
It's not impossible that the Whips timed the moving of the writs knowing this was the date of SC decision.
That actually makes WAY more sense, as it WAS known IIRC that SCOTUS was scheduled to release a bunch of decisions, including this one.
In which case, pretty savvy of Team Big Dog. Perhaps like timing of the 1922 Committee vote?
I think this is complete bollocks. You expect them to be that knowledgeable, that Marchiavellian, that competent? Which Conservative Party have you been watching lately? Also, by most accounts, they didn’t expect to lose Tiverton.
I concur. Blair did The Grid. Johnson does Making It Up As You Go Along.
I'm looking forward to the Sunday papers.
No doubt some outlandish red meat bollocks will then have to be thrown up on Monday morning to try and divert yet again.
Are you suggesting his next effort will be something to do with faggotts?
I do hope not, but with this mob you never know.
"Brussels tried to ban our faggots but I said no."
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.
The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.
BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.
Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.
The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
Boris Johnson: "Johnson’s rule number one – focus."
Mail on Sunday.
The guy has no personal insight whatsoever does he?
I know he is a shameless bounder, but as he casts his gaze on the utter wreckage he has left the country I wonder if there is at least of a twinge of regret.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.
Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why!
However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?
Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
Okay, so the Ronan Burtenshaw tweet earlier was selectively quoting stats from the poll to suggest massive support. Good to know, and not surprising considering the source.
On who's most responsible for the strikes, no surprise that trade unions are on top. But only 7% hold 'railway workers' responsible? It's worth noting that 89% of RMT members voted to strike, on a turnout of 71%.
So rather than blame trade unions, it would be more accurate to hold railway workers responsible. Bloody trade unions, acting on the wishes of their members. That's democracy for you.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
Perhaps Burnham is going for PR as so many local party CLPs are swinging behind the idea?
Internal stuff?
And then as soon as elected leader, drops it.
As one who wants a change of government - Labour led being the only choice available - it seems to me that the Labour party would increase their chances of success by having a different leader. (Rayner, Benn, Cooper, Phillipson especially, Nandy and a couple of others come to mind). This isn't a personal objection to SKS, I think he's fine. But I don't think he quite has the political stuff for enough voters.
But Burnham, IMHO, would be worse. he would be more attractive to those who already vote Labour, but much less attractive to the Tories and LDs who they need a couple of million of to win.
My sense is that neither will be PM. And BTW unlike many I am not convinced by Rachel Reeves.
SCOTUS is not a democracy. This polling is only bad if you view SCOTUS as a bunch of partisan GOP hacks, in which case even Donald Trump thinks so.
Most of America - even those who like this decision - now see them as just that. Public approval for the SC was under 40% last autumn. It is at 25% now.
And little wonder, given they’ve abandoned completely any recognisable judicial principles.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.
Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why!
However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely? Given that defeat of Tories even (or especially) without Boris could well depend on tactical voting more than it did in 1997?
Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
The SNP are pro PR. Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
Boris Johnson: "Johnson’s rule number one – focus."
Mail on Sunday.
The guy has no personal insight whatsoever does he?
I know he is a shameless bounder, but as he casts his gaze on the utter wreckage he has left the country I wonder if there is at least of a twinge of regret.
That tells me you've never been to a country that's been utterly wrecked. Or even lightly so.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.
Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why!
However, is a Labour majority at next election really all that likely?
Probably not likely but these days anything is possible I think. Going from an 80 seat Con majority to a Lab majority in one general election looks a big ask but these are volatile times.
Perhaps Burnham is going for PR as so many local party CLPs are swinging behind the idea?
Internal stuff?
And then as soon as elected leader, drops it.
As one who wants a change of government - Labour led being the only choice available - it seems to me that the Labour party would increase their chances of success by having a different leader. (Rayner, Benn, Cooper, Phillipson especially, Nandy and a couple of others come to mind). This isn't a personal objection to SKS, I think he's fine. But I don't think he quite has the political stuff for enough voters.
But Burnham, IMHO, would be worse. he would be more attractive to those who already vote Labour, but much less attractive to the Tories and LDs who they need a couple of million of to win.
My sense is that neither will be PM. And BTW unlike many I am not convinced by Rachel Reeves.
As I said earlier, but was summarily dismissed, Bridget Phillipson is certainly impressive
Perhaps Burnham is going for PR as so many local party CLPs are swinging behind the idea?
Internal stuff?
And then as soon as elected leader, drops it.
As one who wants a change of government - Labour led being the only choice available - it seems to me that the Labour party would increase their chances of success by having a different leader. (Rayner, Benn, Cooper, Phillipson especially, Nandy and a couple of others come to mind). This isn't a personal objection to SKS, I think he's fine. But I don't think he quite has the political stuff for enough voters.
But Burnham, IMHO, would be worse. he would be more attractive to those who already vote Labour, but much less attractive to the Tories and LDs who they need a couple of million of to win.
My sense is that neither will be PM. And BTW unlike many I am not convinced by Rachel Reeves.
Starmer's fundamental problem is he's not a politician. There's something missing. He just doesn't quite get the game.
Maybe it wont matter in the end as there is a sea change coming and as the economics guy in Telegraph wrote earlier, no government is going to be returned to office in the next three years thanks to inflation crisis.
Boris Johnson: "Johnson’s rule number one – focus."
Mail on Sunday.
The guy has no personal insight whatsoever does he?
I know he is a shameless bounder, but as he casts his gaze on the utter wreckage he has left the country I wonder if there is at least of a twinge of regret.
That tells me you've never been to a country that's been utterly wrecked. Or even lightly so.
Or maybe that you just enjoy hyperbole.
Fair enough. Replace “utter wreckage” with “multiple bin-fires”.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Trans atheltes have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2003.
In that time, 19 years, how many olympic world records have been set by Trans athletes?
How many gold medals won?
How many silvers?
Bronze?
How many have qualified for the final round in any Olympic event?
How many have.... qualified to compete at the Olympics?
If you hold the position that having gone through male puberty is essentially disqualifying a person from being considered a woman but you also hold the position that people should not be allowed to transition until after they have gone through puberty then are you saying trans women shouldn't exist?
Comments
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/the-brilliance-of-safe-legal-and-rare/603151/
This is a great article from 2019 on Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare” abortion compromise.
He really was a political genius, for all his faults.
They may well genuinely have gender dysphoria. Who knows. But that is not, frankly, the point. What is is whether competition can be fair when one - because of their sex - has an in-built physical advantage.
Put it this way, there were women sportswomen in the 1970's who were denied prizes because of the industrial level doping by Russian and Eastern European sports authorities which turned their women into sort of men. That was rightly seen as cheating. Having men - who naturally have the physical advantages which those Russian women were being given chemically - participate in women's sport is also cheating.
It is not "identities" which compete in sport. But bodies
Sporting authorities are beginning to see this.
Personally though I think the swimming authorities decision correct. I don't think governments need get too involved, as this is a role where individual sports should set their own rules in the interests of athlete safety, effective competition and inclusivity.
As for rest, that's where rubber hits road re: state & district demographics, economics, issues, politics.
I'm surprised no-one's asked why Jude Law is in there....
I need to find someone up here who will issue me with a new Bank of Scotland polymer £100 note!
Although they may wonder why you're selling yourself so cheap, of course. I mean, they spent £250 million and counting buying votes in Glasgow...
In any event, if it was fine for 13 states but not for 50, what was the tipping point - 25? 30?
However, I would just point out that most top athletes are freaks of nature: men and women where a set of inherited traits and environmental factors have made them perfect for a sport, or sports. Often they are anthropometrically suited for their sport.
Michael Phelps being a good example.
Where in the world can you accidentally land in the right city but the wrong continent?
Are there any others besides Istanbul?
Where exactly does North America become South America? Panama?
Swimming, athletics, cycling, contact sports, weightlifting, boxing etc are different.
States (and countries) are convenient fictions. I know Rhode Island reasonably well, my wife’s from Connecticut, it’s basically a suburb of Boston. And the only reason the two Dakotas outvote California in the Senate is that their now respective state capitals couldn’t decide which would be the capital of a single Dakota, so they made two states from the territory instead of one.
If the Americans could abolish German Lander of significantly greater antiquity and cultural difference to their own, they can do it to their own states.
(Mexico is in North America. But is it also a central American country, or not?)
As such it rather fossilises in a lot of 18th Century Enlightenment ideas, good and bad, but is regarded as Holy Writ and unchangeable, apart frome the highly laborious process of ammendments by a super-majority.
@ObserverUK poll🚨
Labour's lead edges up to 3 points over the Tories:
Con 34% (n/c)
Lab 37% (+1)
Lib Dem 11% (-2)
Green 6% (n/c)
Fieldwork was conducted June 22nd-24th https://t.co/75FriC9q7N
The boredom is real
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
Bozo -29
Curry -8
It is in some senses a fiction, but not entirely. Eg Georgia really does feel like a European country, exotic and different and remote from most of Europe, but European. Like a quirky northern Greece maybe.
Armenia definitely feels more like Asia. A mix of Israel and northern Syria
When it comes to who would make the best Prime Minister, Johnson continues to lead Starmer, although by only 1 point.
28% think Johnson would be best (nc)
27% think Johnson would be best (+1)
35% said "None of these" https://t.co/TYEd1EXCvQ
SKS 29
Boris 27
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1540749286656180226
So it is tempting to say that we shouldn't have men's sport or women's sport, but just sport, and let whoever compete who can. And, in some sports, this is what is happening - darts and horse-racing jockeys are the obvious examples that come to mind.
However, in practice, this would mean that for many sports no woman would ever have a chance. The women's 100m record is 10.49s, while the Olympic qualification standard for the men's event is 10.05s. If you want women to participate then for many sports they need to have their own event.
If x% of the male population become female then, inevitably, they will come to dominate female sporting competition. Why then should any woman bother to participate? You might as well not have a female category of competition at all.
Fuck it’s good.
> Virginia the largest state in 1789, agreed to separation of Kentucky County (1792) however it was inevitable KY was going to go it's own way; indeed VA like other states had ceded (or soon would) vast acres in western land claims (west of the Appalachians).
> Old Dominion did retain trans-Appalachian turf that became West Virginia (1863) but this was during the Civil War as a war measure, and Confederate Virginia could do nothing but watch it happen; and by this time VA was no longer a big state.
> Massachusetts consented to separation of District of Maine (1820) but again this appears virtually inevitable, given that Maine and (rest of) Mass were (and still are) separated by New Hampshire, and fact that ME was viable on its own, and wanted to go.
> BUT note that statehood for Maine was part of the Missouri Compromise limiting but also authorizing spread of slavery west of the Mississippi River; indeed Maine statehood was balanced by that of new slave state of Missouri.
> Texas famously entered the Union via a treaty between US and Republic of Texas, which guaranteed new slave state right to divide itself into IIRC five states, thus increasing potential clout of slaveocracy in US Senate. However, neither before nor after Civil War has voluntary subdivision of the Lone Star State ever been in the cards.
> California entered the Union in a hurry and immediate aftermath of the Mexican-American War, the California "Republic" (barely amounting to a legal fiction) and subsequent Gold Rush. Statehood was part of the Comprise of 1850 that threw out Missouri Compromise and expanded slavery into all territories BUT admitted CA as a free state. Note that many, esp. southerners, suggested dividing (Alta) California into North and South, by extending the old Missouri Comp. line to the Pacific, and making the South a slave state. However, this idea was killed, by anti-slavery Northerners AND by . . . wait for it . . . Californians. Meaning the American newcomers, but also including most of the Latino Californios. Because folks in CA thought that being divided would DIMINISH their state NOT increase the interest of the separate parts OR themselves.
American generally believe that bigger is better. Even when we pretend otherwise!
Residents of big states are proud of the fact.
Residents of small states get this. And look for ways to protect - and feel big - themselves.
The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.
BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
No doubt some outlandish red meat bollocks will then have to be thrown up on Monday morning to try and divert yet again.
I’ve had a weird, tiring week which has done my head in a bit and left me feeling anxious and down about the state of the world, and this little exchange (plus the travelogue above) cheered me up a bit. Never lose your sense of humour PB.
I do hope not, but with this mob you never know.
Tories will have a field day.
Don't let them wreck our voting system etc etc etc.
SNP, Liberal plot etc etc etc.
Jeez.
Somedays I despair.
Internal stuff?
And then as soon as elected leader, drops it.
The debate is discombobulated by those who think that there is only one possible view, and those who ascribe hidden motives and desires to those they disagree with. ("Women controllers!!" "Baby murderers!!") Can't see how any of this helps.
Starmer (LAB): 29% (-1)
Sturgeon (SNP): 28% (-3)*
Sunak (CON): 28% (=)
Johnson (CON): 27% (-1)
Khan (LAB): 24% (+1)*
Javid (CON): 22% (-2)*
Truss (CON): 20% (-1)*
Patel (CON): 20% (+2)*
Davey (LDM): 18% (-1)*
via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
Indeed, she will shortly be doing one.
Remain: 34% (+1)
Resign: 54% (=)
via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun
(Changes with 10 Jun)
Do you think Keir Starmer should remain as leader of the Labour Party, or resign with someone else becoming leader instead?
Remain: 37% (-2)
Resign: 33% (+2)
via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun
(Changes with 10 Jun)
Mail on Sunday.
The guy has no personal insight whatsoever does he?
Trade unions: 35%
Government: 25%
Train companies: 17%
Railway workers: 7%
Railway strikes…do you support or oppose?
Support: 38%
Oppose: 43%
via @OpiniumResearch, 22-24 Jun
Call be cynical but I suspect his support for PR would last about as long as it takes to get a Labour majority - especially if it's a big one.
Remember when Tony kept dangling the prospect of PR and power sharing in front of Paddy and Roy Jenkins? Then he won a 180 seat majority and suddenly went off the idea... can't think why!
Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.
The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
Stance of SNP could prove rather interesting, depending on the electoral math AND exactly what kind of PR.
So rather than blame trade unions, it would be more accurate to hold railway workers responsible. Bloody trade unions, acting on the wishes of their members. That's democracy for you.
But Burnham, IMHO, would be worse. he would be more attractive to those who already vote Labour, but much less attractive to the Tories and LDs who they need a couple of million of to win.
My sense is that neither will be PM. And BTW unlike many I am not convinced by Rachel Reeves.
Public approval for the SC was under 40% last autumn. It is at 25% now.
And little wonder, given they’ve abandoned completely any recognisable judicial principles.
Despite the fact they would be worse affected than anyone at Westminster by it.
Or maybe that you just enjoy hyperbole.
So even-steven on that score, and close (or close enough) to moa on support v oppose. Leading me to think this is advantage strikers albeit narrow?
Will be interesting to see how things progress, or otherwise.
Maybe it wont matter in the end as there is a sea change coming and as the economics guy in Telegraph wrote earlier, no government is going to be returned to office in the next three years thanks to inflation crisis.
Replace “utter wreckage” with “multiple bin-fires”.
They've been becalmed for months.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Trans atheltes have been able to compete in the Olympics since 2003.
In that time, 19 years, how many olympic world records have been set by Trans athletes?
How many gold medals won?
How many silvers?
Bronze?
How many have qualified for the final round in any Olympic event?
How many have.... qualified to compete at the Olympics?
If you hold the position that having gone through male puberty is essentially disqualifying a person from being considered a woman but you also hold the position that people should not be allowed to transition until after they have gone through puberty then are you saying trans women shouldn't exist?