He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.
There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2
The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'
Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.
Point 3 states
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board
So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.
You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.
Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.
Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
“… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.
There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2
The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'
Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.
Point 3 states
Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board
So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.
You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.
Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.
Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
“… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”
Why the distinction?
You keep telling us there are no people of distinction in the Scottish Cons.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
Half the poll was taken after he had resigned!
'Whos better. Sir Keir or an absolutely unhinged nutter who has resigned?'
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
It’s disappointing to hear. This could be a race to the bottom of sane policy platforms just to win the crown 🙁
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
Half the poll was taken after he had resigned!
Yeah - suggests that measurement redundant during lame duck period, unfortunately for Starmer.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
Half the poll was taken after he had resigned!
Yeah - suggests that measurement redundant during lame duck period, unfortunately for Starmer.
I think he will be relieved given how little he inspires anybody
Sunak is the sanest of the Leavers but admittedly has some baggage . All the cabinet members have the issue of supporting Johnson for 2 and a half years . Equally I suppose they could accuse Starmer of being willing to put Corbyn in no 10.
Corbyn was very flawed but not a pathological liar so perhaps that’s a possible riposte !
Which is worse, supporting a liar or supporting someone honestly engaging in antisemitism?
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
It’s disappointing to hear. This could be a race to the bottom of sane policy platforms just to win the crown 🙁
The best outcome is Sunak v one of the candidates who was a Remainer .
Sunak would of course win but the debate might avoid a race to the bottom and who hates the EU more .
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
The German government has just come out against net zero, by deciding to burn coal instead of using nuclear power.
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
The German government has just come out against net zero, by deciding to burn coal instead of using nuclear power.
That’s an insane policy . Nuclear is the way to go IMO.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
@Cyclefree thanks for such a considered reply - I really appreciate learning more about this. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to respond to the comments you make specifically about the trans debate - I'll think and read your post referred to.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
No this is complete nonsense
I don’t fancy men. It’s fundamental
I don’t want a penis in my mouth or up my butt. I don’t want to wake up next to someone hairy. It repels me. Reflexively. It would be the opposite of arousal
The idea this is “socially conditioned” is insane. I have the desire to be naked with a naked person of the opposite sex because this is how humans reproduce. It does not get more natural and instinctive than that
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
I can agree with everything you write and still stand by my post (which still might be complete nonsense, of course). There are, for sure, a category of people whose sexual preferences are entirely aimed at the opposite sex. Sounds like you fit in that category.
There is, just as clearly, another category of people whose sexual preferences are just as strongly felt as yours are, but towards people of the same sex as them.
I suspect there is a group in the middle whose preferences aren't so strictly defined by anything innate, but rather who they will consider as a sexual partner depends in part on the views of the society they grow up in, and live in as an adult.
My gut instinct is that most people, if they were able to escape the various ways our sexual appetites are repressed by society, would fit in that last category. But I have no evidence for that.
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
The German government has just come out against net zero, by deciding to burn coal instead of using nuclear power.
That’s an insane policy . Nuclear is the way to go IMO.
Nuclear should absolutely be part of the mix.
But a limited return to coal is probably a quicker way to increase generating capacity until new nuclear plants come on stream.
I know there is no such thing as clean coal. But there is carbon capture technology which will make it less damaging than in the past.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
Half the poll was taken after he had resigned!
Yeah - suggests that measurement redundant during lame duck period, unfortunately for Starmer.
I think he will be relieved given how little he inspires anybody
But will be a fascinating measurement once new leader in place, how long can they hold onto honeymoon bounce in it. Will it even start ahead of Starmer?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
The German government has just come out against net zero, by deciding to burn coal instead of using nuclear power.
That’s an insane policy . Nuclear is the way to go IMO.
Nuclear should absolutely be part of the mix.
But a limited return to coal is probably a quicker way to increase generating capacity until new nuclear plants come on stream.
I know there is no such thing as clean coal. But there is carbon capture technology which will make it less damaging than in the past.
There was a piece in the Guardian agreeing with you on this today, I read in the diner over breakfast.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Wasn’t this a rather close 3 points in the last Opinium, and we asked is that a raw figure or swingback built in as well?
Boris was ahead 28 27 last time
So a big fall. But I still suspect they could have “swingback” set on all down through the results, to have Boris leading last time.
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
Half the poll was taken after he had resigned!
Yeah - suggests that measurement redundant during lame duck period, unfortunately for Starmer.
I think he will be relieved given how little he inspires anybody
But will be a fascinating measurement once new leader in place, how long can they hold onto honeymoon bounce in it. Will it even start ahead of Starmer?
Flippin eck. We have to wait 8 weeks for that.
Patience Rabbit San, we have comedy polling aplenty to enjoy before that
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
It's very early but I'm not getting the sense any of the candidates would transform the Conservatives' political and polling fortunes.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
It’s disappointing to hear. This could be a race to the bottom of sane policy platforms just to win the crown 🙁
The best outcome is Sunak v one of the candidates who was a Remainer .
Sunak would of course win but the debate might avoid a race to the bottom and who hates the EU more .
Promising tax cuts even though it may be the maddest thing to do with the inherited inflation is another one to listen for. Wouldn’t voters prefer government spending, to deliver those government promises, with the tax cut money?
Win the Tory Crown. Doom your party’s electoral chances in the process with your list of promises.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
@Cyclefree thanks for such a considered reply - I really appreciate learning more about this. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to respond to the comments you make specifically about the trans debate - I'll think and read your post referred to.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
No this is complete nonsense
I don’t fancy men. It’s fundamental
I don’t want a penis in my mouth or up my butt. I don’t want to wake up next to someone hairy. It repels me. Reflexively. It would be the opposite of arousal
The idea this is “socially conditioned” is insane. I have the desire to be naked with a naked person of the opposite sex because this is how humans reproduce. It does not get more natural and instinctive than that
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
I can agree with everything you write and still stand by my post (which still might be complete nonsense, of course). There are, for sure, a category of people whose sexual preferences are entirely aimed at the opposite sex. Sounds like you fit in that category.
There is, just as clearly, another category of people whose sexual preferences are just as strongly felt as yours are, but towards people of the same sex as them.
I suspect there is a group in the middle whose preferences aren't so strictly defined by anything innate, but rather who they will consider as a sexual partner depends in part on the views of the society they grow up in, and live in as an adult.
My gut instinct is that most people, if they were able to escape the various ways our sexual appetites are repressed by society, would fit in that last category. But I have no evidence for that.
All the evidence is that the vast majority of people are only attracted to the opposite sex.
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
It's very early but I'm not getting the sense any of the candidates would transform the Conservatives' political and polling fortunes.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
Not so much now, after 12 years in power I will vote for the candidate I like best in the final 2 not who is most likely to win, especially as Starmer is less of a threat than Corbyn.
As you suggest it looks like none of the candidates would do much better than Boris, Sunak or Tugendhat might win most seats in a hung parliament but the Tories would still likely lose their majority
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
The claim that this is bigotry seems to me to be an attempt to put transpeople on a par with other oppressed minorities. But being black or Jewish or Chinese aren't relevant to sexual attractiveness. Whereas someone's sex & body are: they're fundamental to it. You're not oppressed because people with a different sexuality to yours don't want to have sex with you. To claim so is fundamentally dishonest.
Some people may well be willing to have intimate relationships with a trans person but that needs to be their choice. A trans person would be better advised, IMO, to be open about who they are & persuade a potential partner in the normal way not by making factually untrue claims, hurling abuse or trying to bully someone into sex.
@Cyclefree thanks for such a considered reply - I really appreciate learning more about this. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge to respond to the comments you make specifically about the trans debate - I'll think and read your post referred to.
More generally, I can see the question and your response stimulated a lot of debate about whether sexual preferences can correlate with a societal prejudice. Having read yours and lots of other comments, I think I fall down on the side of sexual preferences being significantly informed by societal norms (though of course there is a lot of innate preference in there too).
I am sure that it is true that some just innately prefer certain physical characteristics, but I suspect there is also a healthy dose of absorbing the prejudices of those around you which mean some people just wouldn't consider e.g. having sex with someone with a skin colour that is different to theirs, or having sex with someone of the same sex or gender as them, even if it would arouse them if they put themselves in that situation.
I am still not sure whether or not any of these ideas can be applied to biological men with penises identifying as women - I'll keep reading.
No this is complete nonsense
I don’t fancy men. It’s fundamental
I don’t want a penis in my mouth or up my butt. I don’t want to wake up next to someone hairy. It repels me. Reflexively. It would be the opposite of arousal
The idea this is “socially conditioned” is insane. I have the desire to be naked with a naked person of the opposite sex because this is how humans reproduce. It does not get more natural and instinctive than that
I was talking earlier about how my ex wife - with my keen consent - experimented with lesbianism (as long as I could watch). She did it, and she had fun, but at the end she said “Nope, I don’t like pussy, I want cock” - sorry to be so vulgar but it’s hard to avoid it. My ex wife is probably the most experimental, open minded person I’ve met (she married me FFS) but she is hard wired to be hetero. Nothing to do with “absorbed prejudices”
I can agree with everything you write and still stand by my post (which still might be complete nonsense, of course). There are, for sure, a category of people whose sexual preferences are entirely aimed at the opposite sex. Sounds like you fit in that category.
There is, just as clearly, another category of people whose sexual preferences are just as strongly felt as yours are, but towards people of the same sex as them.
I suspect there is a group in the middle whose preferences aren't so strictly defined by anything innate, but rather who they will consider as a sexual partner depends in part on the views of the society they grow up in, and live in as an adult.
My gut instinct is that most people, if they were able to escape the various ways our sexual appetites are repressed by society, would fit in that last category. But I have no evidence for that.
Just have a look at any account of "public schools"* in the late C19 and C20. The obsession of headmasters with 'moral tone' tells the historian a great deal.
And..... Starmer leads 28 to 20 on best PM........ versus Boris, after this week, lmfao
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
We literally do not have a choice. The rich can pay for it.
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
It's very early but I'm not getting the sense any of the candidates would transform the Conservatives' political and polling fortunes.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
I wonder if there will be a TV debate this time? I remember they had the top 5 on C4 last time and it was chaos
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
The public are in favour of “Net Zero” as an abstract concept, until it’s pointed out to them that it means petrol is £2 a litre, and granny is going to really struggle to keep the heating on this winter - and that the Davos Set (hi, Rishi) think these high prices are a good thing.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
500 years ago? More like the present day, albeit not at the stake. Look at the recent history of NI.
Just saw Somerset break the record for domestic cricket at 265-5. In the midde of this absolute carnage Scrimshaw got 2-16 off 4 overs. Why isn't he playing for England???
Jesus. What were the other 4 bowlers figures? Hellish?
Clearly she’s decided to just play to the membership who will like that . The more I see of the other Leavers the more Sunak looks like the sensible choice .
The German government has just come out against net zero, by deciding to burn coal instead of using nuclear power.
That’s an insane policy . Nuclear is the way to go IMO.
Nuclear should absolutely be part of the mix.
But a limited return to coal is probably a quicker way to increase generating capacity until new nuclear plants come on stream.
I know there is no such thing as clean coal. But there is carbon capture technology which will make it less damaging than in the past.
The Germans voted to shut down existing nuclear, and go for coal instead. That’s what’s mad about it.
Just saw Somerset break the record for domestic cricket at 265-5. In the midde of this absolute carnage Scrimshaw got 2-16 off 4 overs. Why isn't he playing for England???
Jesus. What were the other 4 bowlers figures? Hellish?
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
That's right. We note the pledges but are sceptical whether the Government is doing enough to achieve them. You might, if feeling uncharitable, call them hot air. Some Tories are perfectly sincere and trying hard; others see it as more of a slogan. Kemi is at least honest in opposing even pretending to be in favour.
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
The public are in favour of “Net Zero” as an abstract concept, until it’s pointed out to them that it means petrol is £2 a litre, and granny is going to really struggle to keep the heating on this winter - and that the Davos Set (hi, Rishi) think these high prices are a good thing.
Is the green initiative responsible for all this pain, as you are trying to argue?
If you are ideologically against meeting the target and the work involved, so you exploited the international situation and the pain from this to argue for the policy change, would it not A) look extremely transparent to voters what you are doing B.)be regarded as disgusting, and C) result in a huge loss of votes and seats?
Did you get a chance to glance through Tory document I just posted there?
A source who is very close to Johnson said: “He hates the Tory party. He absolutely hates them. He sees them as thwarting him. He’s convinced the British public is still behind him. He sees everything still through the prism of Brexit. It’s the centrepiece of his legacy.”
The flap of white coats is required as Quentin Letts noted the other day.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were also burnt as heretics. Today however unlike many nations of your religion of heritage most Christian nations don't make atheism illegal.
Christ's message however remains as relevant as ever.
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
That's right. We note the pledges but are sceptical whether the Government is doing enough to achieve them. You might, if feeling uncharitable, call them hot air. Some Tories are perfectly sincere and trying hard; others see it as more of a slogan. Kemi is at least honest in opposing even pretending to be in favour.
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
In a broader sense, is it fair to say the Greens have a more social/socialist approach to ecology than Labour?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
It's very early but I'm not getting the sense any of the candidates would transform the Conservatives' political and polling fortunes.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
I wonder if there will be a TV debate this time? I remember they had the top 5 on C4 last time and it was chaos
That was where Javid won the report into Islamophobia in the Tory Party out of Johnson?
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
That's right. We note the pledges but are sceptical whether the Government is doing enough to achieve them. You might, if feeling uncharitable, call them hot air. Some Tories are perfectly sincere and trying hard; others see it as more of a slogan. Kemi is at least honest in opposing even pretending to be in favour.
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
The Greens' policy regarding economic growth (or the reversal of it) is utterly insane. Sad, mad people. One hopes that at some point they recover.
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
Tugendhat and Sunak only 2 of the declared and still potential Tory leadership contenders with more voters thinking they would make good PMs than bad by 1%.
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
It's very early but I'm not getting the sense any of the candidates would transform the Conservatives' political and polling fortunes.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
I wonder if there will be a TV debate this time? I remember they had the top 5 on C4 last time and it was chaos
That was where Javid won the report into Islamophobia in the Tory Party out of Johnson?
Was that eventually delivered?
I suspect not... (in fairness there was a global pandemic)
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Have you dug out God and Mary's marriage certificate yet? Ta!
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
Any resignation honours by elections will take place at or near the sweet spot of the new leader bounce.
Just saw Somerset break the record for domestic cricket at 265-5. In the midde of this absolute carnage Scrimshaw got 2-16 off 4 overs. Why isn't he playing for England???
Jesus. What were the other 4 bowlers figures? Hellish?
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
We literally do not have a choice. The rich can pay for it.
Of course we have a choice. Watch fewer stupid Netflix documentaries.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
Some people mumbling prayers in temples don't believe God exists either. I know. I'm one of them.
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
Any resignation honours by elections will take place at or near the sweet spot of the new leader bounce.
Lab wouldn't want a byelection in Amber Valley as they likely wouldn't win
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
Taking a wild stab, reducing our (already comparatively very low) carbon emissions at a speed that doesn't impoverish the citizenry and wreck the economy. Weren't you complaining about the cost of living the other day? Join the dots.
This is at least a proper thing to be discussing at this juncture, regarding policy direction for future leadership.
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
That's right. We note the pledges but are sceptical whether the Government is doing enough to achieve them. You might, if feeling uncharitable, call them hot air. Some Tories are perfectly sincere and trying hard; others see it as more of a slogan. Kemi is at least honest in opposing even pretending to be in favour.
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
The Greens' policy regarding economic growth (or the reversal of it) is utterly insane. Sad, mad people. One hopes that at some point they recover.
It is the notion that economic growth can continue unhindered forever that is utterly insane.
Capitalism is one giant Ponzi scheme and at some point it will all come crashing down.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were
Wrong! I am openly atheist. I make no secret of the fact that God does not exist and all those people in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc are mumbling their prayers to an empty sky.
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
Some people mumbling prayers in temples don't believe God exists either. I know. I'm one of them.
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
Any resignation honours by elections will take place at or near the sweet spot of the new leader bounce.
They may well do. Assuming there is one. And assuming it doesn't kill the bounce stone dead. Any by-election is a hostage to fortune. Boris may be lobbing unexploded grenades to his successor.
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were also burnt as heretics. Today however unlike many nations of your religion of heritage most Christian nations don't make atheism illegal.
Christ's message however remains as relevant as ever.
His openly gay relationship with John the Disciple certainly speaks to us across the ages
I an a WASP by the way, except the P bit. "Ishmael" is a Moby Dick gag.
According to the Times, Boris proposed to put Nadine in the House of Lords.
By-election in Bedfordshire klaxon.
By election in Selby & Ainsty as well.
Nigel Adams, whom enemies accuse of persuading Johnson to employ Pincher, a drinking partner of his, has been telling friends he will get a peerage. Nadine Dorries is also expected to go to the Lords and revert to writing novels.
I would fear for the very foundations of the British constitution if an outgoing, raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light, PM did not promote a few slavish cult flunkies to the HoL.
So much for all that 'the loyalists(in fact, new rebels) will fight on and Boris make a comeback' talk if he is going to install current MPs into the Lords.
And some more interesting byelections in promising seats....
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
"What do you make of the argument that if, say, someone could never, ever be attracted to a person of a significantly different skin colour, we might affirm their personal choice and yet still suggest that they harboured a societal prejudice? And that a similar prejudice is on display for someone (whatever their sexual orientation) that would not ever consider having sex with a trans person?
Is (a) the idea this is prejudiced wrong? (b) correct, but not applicable to the case of trans people because of the physical difference in genitalia? (c) something else going on?"
My answer is that to confuse a sexual preference with societal prejudice is to make a fundamental category mistake.
A sexual preference is innate & strongly correlated with a person's body. If you're gay you want to have sex with people of the same sex. If you're straight you want sex with the opposite sex. It is the sex of the partner which is key. Body and sex are intimately connected.
So a gay man is not prejudiced against women because he does not want to have sex with them. There is no prejudice or bigotry. The basic sexual attraction simply does not exist. Ditto with a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a man. It is not societal preferences which determine this but your own sexuality.
Now TRAs have got themselves into a pickle because while they may well feel themselves to be a different sex, their actual body has not changed. (The overwhelming majority of transpeople do not have surgery so retain the body they were born with.) Whatever they may feel however genuinely, the factual reality is that a lesbian is not going to be sexually attracted to a male body. Similarly a gay man is not going to be attracted a trans man retaining their female body. That is not prejudice or bigotry. It is a consequence of their sexuality.
TRAs are not willing to accept this because it undermines their claim that, say, a TW is just like any other woman. She isn't & in a very fundamental way. Sex is the rock on which the belief TRAs have crashes and founders. Rather than accept this, they describe a normal sexual preference as bigotry & preference belittle & demean lesbians by claiming that men are lesbians. It is aggressive, upsetting & infused with a rape mentality - a coercive approach which assumes that they are entitled to sex with women & any woman refusing this has no business doing so.
If a white person is only attracted to other white people, is that prejudice?
I agree that what genitals you are attracted to is not a prejudice, but does that generalise to other features?
Sex is one of those things that proves we're all capitalists, and proves the ruthlessness of capitalism at the same time.
In sex, there's no redistribution. There's no "look at those poor people over there, they aren't getting any, we should take some partners off the people who are getting loads and give them to the poor deprived people." We lionise the billionares of the sex world. The most beautiful. The most active. The most - dare I say it - privileged.
I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, by the way. Just making the point that even the staunchest communist, who would be willing to redistribute income, food, housing, practically everything else to make people equal - would find the idea of sexual "equality" absurd.
No open atheists were also burnt at the stake as heretics.
Though of course unlike many nations of your religion of heritage atheism is not illegal in virtually any Christian countries today. However Christ's message holds true as much now as then
Without commenting on the substance of what you're saying, redistribution and capitalism go together quite nicely. Capitalism does not imply a lack of redistribution, and, I firmly believe, cannot possibly survive without redistribution.
Which is why our attitudes to sex are all the more remarkable. The sexual marketplace is hyper-capitalism, rapacious capitalism, ayn-rand-style-tyranny-of-the-market-capitalism.
The idea of redistribution in the sexual marketplace is repugnant to us. The notion of coercion, abhorrent. We are happy to have 40% of our incomes taken off us, but 40% of our sexual partners given to those unluckier in love than we are would be ridiculous.
The sexual marketplace accepts absolutely zero compulsion, whether that's being forced to sleep with an ugly person, or a person whose bits you aren't attracted to.
As I say, it says something fascinating about human nature.
At the end of the day there are about equal numbers of good looking, average looking and ugly looking men and women. If more followed traditional religious principles and stuck to one partner who matched them in looks and personality for life there would be less of an issue.
Only a small minority of us are very good looking or will be very rich so better to settle for what you have
Did God ever marry the mother of His Only Begotten Son?
He produced Jesus via the Holy Spirit through Mary and Joseph committed to Mary for life to bring him up
Christianity - One adulterers lie that got out of hand.
You of course would never be so insulting about Muhammad or the Koran or you would have a Fatwa on you!
Given the amount of paedo Prophet stuff that gets boaked up on the internet (including on occasions on here) I sense your fatwa fears are somewhat over egged.
Anyone who can be publicly identified as having insulted the Prophet is likely to have a Fatwa on them and a mob round by their house.
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
No you didn't, it was more those who subscribed wholeheartedly to the religion but had virtually invisible sectarian disagreements over details. And Christianity is as contemptibly vile now as it was then, just, thankfully, relatively toothless.
No open atheists were also burnt as heretics. Today however unlike many nations of your religion of heritage most Christian nations don't make atheism illegal.
Christ's message however remains as relevant as ever.
His openly gay relationship with John the Disciple certainly speaks to us across the ages
I an a WASP by the way, except the P bit. "Ishmael" is a Moby Dick gag.
No it doesn't just your rude disrespectful attitude, WASP or not
I expect the burden will be placed on the under 40s - their broad shoulders will have to squeeze on some more National Debt Repayments for the next 50 years.
Comments
Apparently it worked.
(Not that you're necessarily wrong.)
Alternatively can you build swingback into best PM with any degree of accuracy? When there was the “day the polls moved” in 2015 campaign, they all still showed Cameron some way ahead on this rating? 🤔
'Whos better. Sir Keir or an absolutely unhinged nutter who has resigned?'
By a small margin, Sir Keir.
Lol
Sunak would of course win but the debate might avoid a race to the bottom and who hates the EU more .
Every other contender is seen as being a bad PM if they got the job
A lot of Conservative thinking, and the General Public are very much on the side of Net Zero 50 (pushed through by May in her Lame Duck Period?) and Labours position, in Millibands hands is Tory’s are not going quickly enough? (Nick Palmer May be the one to correct me if I have that wrong).
https://www.ukonward.com/reports/taking-the-temperature/
I've been out. Have you already told us how long since the previous Tory poll lead?
And can you tell us when the next one will be please.
Thanks.
There is, just as clearly, another category of people whose sexual preferences are just as strongly felt as yours are, but towards people of the same sex as them.
I suspect there is a group in the middle whose preferences aren't so strictly defined by anything innate, but rather who they will consider as a sexual partner depends in part on the views of the society they grow up in, and live in as an adult.
My gut instinct is that most people, if they were able to escape the various ways our sexual appetites are repressed by society, would fit in that last category. But I have no evidence for that.
But a limited return to coal is probably a quicker way to increase generating capacity until new nuclear plants come on stream.
I know there is no such thing as clean coal. But there is carbon capture technology which will make it less damaging than in the past.
Flippin eck. We have to wait 8 weeks for that.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ffqemZ-YOi7AvAw8HbxmMd0vIbsOXLZ7KpAmNQPD2r8/htmlview?usp=sharing&pru=AAABggiqaHo*ZvDERM9CfCaQ6_FjI0M4AQ#
Anyway, we can safely assume that Esther won't be standing.
You and I both know how significant in-campaign polling can be - Johnson's win in 2019 was predicated on him being the only candidate able to win a majority and stop Farage. In 1990, it wasn't until polling showed he was as effective as Heseltine in eroding Labour's lead that Major gained the momentum required to win.
Once we get the chaff removed and we're down to three or four serious candidates, I suspect one of the pollsters will do a hypothetical "If x were leader" polls.
Would your membership vote be influenced by such polling?
Win the Tory Crown. Doom your party’s electoral chances in the process with your list of promises.
As you suggest it looks like none of the candidates would do much better than Boris, Sunak or Tugendhat might win most seats in a hung parliament but the Tories would still likely lose their majority
Just we Christians no longer burn at the stake those who disrespect our religion as we did 500 years ago
*In the upper class anglicised sense.
What were the other 4 bowlers figures?
Hellish?
Team Tugendhat
We differ somewhat in nuance from the Greens in emphasizing the potential for Britain to lead a green industrial revolution - better wind turbines, better carbon capture, etc., creating new industries, job and exports; the Greens place the emphasis more on reduced consumption.
If you are ideologically against meeting the target and the work involved, so you exploited the international situation and the pain from this to argue for the policy change, would it not
A) look extremely transparent to voters what you are doing
B.)be regarded as disgusting, and
C) result in a huge loss of votes and seats?
Did you get a chance to glance through Tory document I just posted there?
Sajid Javid and Jeremy Hunt will both seek the Tory leadership, they announce in the Sunday @Telegraph.
They give independent interviews promising huge tax cuts. Both vow to make Corporation Tax 15% (down from 25% due in April).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/09/sajid-javid-jeremy-hunt-call-massive-tax-cuts/
Christ's message however remains as relevant as ever.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10993421/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-axes-fraud-watchdog-accuses-Treasury-sabotage.html
He's axed a new fraud watchdog because the Treasury used the leadership keruffle to bring in changes on Wednesday to prevent it doing its job.
The Treasury isn't fit for purpose.
Brexiteers really are losing their shit now that BoZo is going.
Happy days...
There is no heaven. There are no angels. There is no devil. No one tempts you to sin. No eternal life awaits the virtuous.
Was that eventually delivered?
Who are the most loyalist of the Johnsonite MPs? The ones who would never be awarded any thing from his successor?
Rees Mogg and Mad Nad, I suppose.... Two Lib Dem gains? Edit - I see this has already been touched on. Are there no promising byelections for the Labour Party as well?
But the forward finances are based on it I guess.
So how do you pay for it is a relevant question.
I know. I'm one of them.
Capitalism is one giant Ponzi scheme and at some point it will all come crashing down.
Jeremy Hunt announces he’ll seek the Tory leadership and reveals his platform in the Sunday @Telegraph
Proposes two big biz tax cuts:
- Corporation Tax down to 15% (from 25% in April)
- Zero business rates for *5yrs* for the Red Wall https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/09/jeremy-hunt-can-restore-voters-trust-stayed-boris-bubble/
Or through borrowing?
Are there any options other than tax, borrowing, spending up or down to win votes?
Maybe sell something off? Is there anything left to sell off after Gordon Brown finished selling it all off?
Maybe a windfall tax - on wind and solar power?
Boris may be lobbing unexploded grenades to his successor.
I an a WASP by the way, except the P bit. "Ishmael" is a Moby Dick gag.
She’s too young to be a Lady. She still a child 😆
I expect the burden will be placed on the under 40s - their broad shoulders will have to squeeze on some more National Debt Repayments for the next 50 years.
Waiting to hear what Penny’s position is on this.
Although that would be one way to firm up some wavering supporters.