Pedantic point that she's a PUSS, so junior minister rather than a cabinet minister. Not that that excuses such crass behaviour, which is unbecoming of any elected representative.
The junior ranks of government are swollen with low-wattage Spaff loyalists, presumably as a reward to fluff out their CV, give them a pay boost for doing very little over recess and an inevitable severance bung.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
The problem is that the online activism, is increasingly crossing over into the real world.
The trans activists and feminist activists have been getting each other fired from jobs with alarming regularity, in the past few years.
Indeed, in disputes about activism some extremists have, that's true.
But not about lesbians refusing to have sex with ladies with cocks, which was the original claim. Has any lesbian been fired for refusing to have sex with a "lady with a cock" - I doubt it!
You can't just segue from a claim that lesbians are hated for not having sex with ladies with cocks, to just merging the whole online mess of all trans/feminist issues together and call it the same thing.
Someone posted above, a link to a BBC News report on this specific issue.
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
Where was the bastion of white privilege, the right wing loons and ignorant racism? The Conservative party. A party now dominated by ethnic minorities with Rishi, the Saj, Nahawi, Braverman (lord help us) and Patel (probbaly beyond even his power) in the front runners. Anyone trying to claim that this country has not changed in a very good way over the last 15-20 years just does not want it to be so.
Yes it is important to acknowledge progress in both the country and indeed to their credit the Tory party, and that we are one of the best countries at tackling racism. At the same time also important to acknowledge more to be done and that real problems continue to exist.
IIn other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
If we can train 10,000 other European countries ought to be able to train another 10,000 between them, and the Americans can train at least 50,000. And then you're talking serious numbers.
Assuming the requisite numbers actually exist. There have been a lot of Ukrainians volunteering for the army; how many more young and fairly young men are there to be called up? And if they are in the east of Ukraine how reliable are they likely to be? There is a certain amount of pro-Russian feeling there, or always used to be. If not"actual Russians".
In all honesty Labour ought to be worried if they weren't a long way ahead at this point. The question is whether the decline in the Tory vote is temporary or permanent. I was reading through the thread last night and there was a lot of talk about which candidate would be best etc but we all know from experience how so much depends on the campaign. We have hardly got going yet. Some people will fall flat as a balloon whilst others will surprise us. I just hope it isn't all behind closed doors and MPs have the sense to put candidates in front of the public/media to see how they go down.
In other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
A new leader bounce is to be expected; I wonder though if Sunak is successful then that effect will be depressed because he is already very well known.
IIn other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
If we can train 10,000 other European countries ought to be able to train another 10,000 between them, and the Americans can train at least 50,000. And then you're talking serious numbers.
Assuming the requisite numbers actually exist. There have been a lot of Ukrainians volunteering for the army; how many more young and fairly young men are there to be called up? And if they are in the east of Ukraine how reliable are they likely to be? There is a certain amount of pro-Russian feeling there, or always used to be. If not"actual Russians".
There used to be some pro-Russian feeling, but the experience of war has almost completely dissipated that feeling. Having your home shelled and your neighbours killed will have that effect.
Ukraine has vast numbers of people signed up to territorial defence regiments, and other units, who are under arms, and in some cases on the front line, with little training. Anything we can do to provide more training will be helpful.
What no one, on either side, can say — and this will no doubt apply to whoever wins the Tory leadership — is that Johnson’s Brexit has left the UK in a long-term predicament, choosing between the subjugation of a Norway-style relationship or the self-harm of the status quo.
What he too has spotted is that Rishi will start his term as many incoming CEOs in business do - by trashing the record of their predecessor and recasting the accounts with write downs and provisions and disclosures so that year one of the new regime starts in crisis with a massive loss, from which the new guy can only improve.
Braverman was the AG who thought it was a good idea to support Dominic Cumming's little trip to Durham on the basis that "protecting your family" is the right thing to do. She responded to the Colston 4 verdict by threatening a remit to the Appeal Court (which never transpired). She has fairly consistently shown a complete lack of understanding of the role and limitations on a law officer and was, bluntly, not fit to hold that office. The idea that this makes her fit to be PM is, well, remarkable.
"The attorney general has referred the case of four protesters cleared of the toppling of the statue of the slave trader Edward Colston to the court of appeal for legal direction."
Guardian 13 April.
Has she changed her mind?
Any appeal from an acquittal would only be for legal clarification; ie analysis of the judge's directions on law. The defence was morally quite strong but legally on rather novel ground.
Mercifully in this country jurors can do what they like by way of acquitting. (Seven Bishops Case; Clive Ponting etc)
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Well put. Someone made a joke about how many Indian fans had flown in to watch the fifth test - obviously most are second and third generation Brits of Indian background. Who you support at sport is easy for me, I’m as white English as you get, mostly Wiltshire as far back as we’ve got. But if you are brown, and from an Indian heritage family, and love cricket, and dad is a huge fan of Kohli etc etc. It seems many Indian cricket fans cheer for England against anyone other than India. That’s up to them. I know there were reports of trouble, but I’d be amazed if it’s more than an odd drunken confrontation. Even the Yorkshire stuff can be overblown. I note that at least one of the staff sacked won a case for unfair dismissal. We can always be better, and we try. But I really don’t recognise the world @Heathener describes.
I actually hadn’t read the contract, and now I’m like ???? This doofus agreed to SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to pay $44 billion????
Probably going to cost him $10bn plus to walk away.
His net worth will go up and down by that amount on a single day several times a year. Costly but not disastrous.
I struggle to comprehend Musk's wealth; he's like a human NFT worth as much as people are willing to assign to him (vs. e.g. Bezos, Gates etc. who have a clear. identifiable source of regular profitable income).
In all honesty Labour ought to be worried if they weren't a long way ahead at this point. The question is whether the decline in the Tory vote is temporary or permanent. I was reading through the thread last night and there was a lot of talk about which candidate would be best etc but we all know from experience how so much depends on the campaign. We have hardly got going yet. Some people will fall flat as a balloon whilst others will surprise us. I just hope it isn't all behind closed doors and MPs have the sense to put candidates in front of the public/media to see how they go down.
In other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
A new leader bounce is to be expected; I wonder though if Sunak is successful then that effect will be depressed because he is already very well known.
From what level do you expect the bounce back when it happens - 33%, 29%, 25%?
I'm not sure the Conservative decline in VI has bottomed out yet, and it may therefore be some time before young Sunil can stop reporting how long it is since the last Tory poll lead.
IIn other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
If we can train 10,000 other European countries ought to be able to train another 10,000 between them, and the Americans can train at least 50,000. And then you're talking serious numbers.
Assuming the requisite numbers actually exist. There have been a lot of Ukrainians volunteering for the army; how many more young and fairly young men are there to be called up? And if they are in the east of Ukraine how reliable are they likely to be? There is a certain amount of pro-Russian feeling there, or always used to be. If not"actual Russians".
There used to be some pro-Russian feeling, but the experience of war has almost completely dissipated that feeling. Having your home shelled and your neighbours killed will have that effect.
Ukraine has vast numbers of people signed up to territorial defence regiments, and other units, who are under arms, and in some cases on the front line, with little training. Anything we can do to provide more training will be helpful.
There was a good article (must find it) about how the experience of living in the areas taken over by Russia in 2014 had collapsed support among formerly pro-Russian Ukrainians. Literally gangster states - armed men stealing what they like.
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
No. All outcomes are deeply sub-optimal. Including 2016 result + how it has been handled. Other handlings available, but none optimal. Of the terrible choices and chances now, the best looks like a Lab/LD coalition to get fresh pairs of eyes at work.
Scotland presents the same problem in parvo. ATM neither remaining in the union (deeply divisive) nor leaving (deeply divisive + potential for hard border up the road from me!) is remotely acceptable to the relevant population as a whole.
BTW after centuries, and 100 years after 1922 the island of Ireland remains deeply unsettled. So deadlines are not available.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation. My reasons for thinking it are as follows. Use of a VPN, but is clearly authentically British. Beyond parody in her support for woke. Now turns out to be a writer, and a lesbian, characteristics shared with Leon's previous female personas. Writes in a very similar style. Short, sharp paragraphs, single word retorts.
I am not particularly upset about it, more bemused - indeed the sheer logistical prowess of managing two way conversations is quite astonishing.
In all honesty Labour ought to be worried if they weren't a long way ahead at this point. The question is whether the decline in the Tory vote is temporary or permanent. I was reading through the thread last night and there was a lot of talk about which candidate would be best etc but we all know from experience how so much depends on the campaign. We have hardly got going yet. Some people will fall flat as a balloon whilst others will surprise us. I just hope it isn't all behind closed doors and MPs have the sense to put candidates in front of the public/media to see how they go down.
In other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
A new leader bounce is to be expected; I wonder though if Sunak is successful then that effect will be depressed because he is already very well known.
From what level do you expect the bounce back when it happens - 33%, 29%, 25%?
I'm not sure the Conservative decline in VI has bottomed out yet, and it may therefore be some time before young Sunil can stop reporting how long it is since the last Tory poll lead.
Good point, though I would guess it won't go *much* lower than it currently is. This interregnum period is hard to draw polling conclusions from, especially over a summer recess.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
I'm generally on the, "things are much better than they were" side of this debate, but there are some specific problems within cricket that mean it has probably been a brake on progress.
For example in club cricket there are still sometimes separate leagues for non-white teams, because club games and training would traditionally happen on days of the week that were difficult for Muslims. Black ex-players have been blocked from becoming umpires. Grassroots participation in cricket is way down, which means the next generation of players from a Caribbean background mostly didn't come through.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I do not know how widespread it is. I do know that two female friends of mine who are married have been abused by transidentified men for saying that they do not consider men with male bodies to be lesbians. (I am not going to name them for obvious reasons.)
Other evidence: Stonewall hired Morgan Page, a male-bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [the workshop] ‘overcoming the cotton ceiling’ and it is popular.
Catherine McGahy, the Garden Court Chambers QC, said that the term used should be "persuade" rather than "coerce". There is some interesting legal analysis in court cases about the extent to which being "persuaded" into sex amounts to genuine consent.
The abuse of some lesbians by some TRAs is not a myth. It may not be very widespread. We simply do not know. But no woman, lesbian or otherwise, should ever be abused by anyone, for setting boundaries about who she will or will not have sex with and to expect those boundaries to be respected.
To think otherwise is to have the mentality of a rapist. And, sorry, you don't get round that by accusing the woman of a "phobia".
In all honesty Labour ought to be worried if they weren't a long way ahead at this point. The question is whether the decline in the Tory vote is temporary or permanent. I was reading through the thread last night and there was a lot of talk about which candidate would be best etc but we all know from experience how so much depends on the campaign. We have hardly got going yet. Some people will fall flat as a balloon whilst others will surprise us. I just hope it isn't all behind closed doors and MPs have the sense to put candidates in front of the public/media to see how they go down.
In other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
I actually hadn’t read the contract, and now I’m like ???? This doofus agreed to SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to pay $44 billion????
Probably going to cost him $10bn plus to walk away.
His net worth will go up and down by that amount on a single day several times a year. Costly but not disastrous.
I struggle to comprehend Musk's wealth; he's like a human NFT worth as much as people are willing to assign to him (vs. e.g. Bezos, Gates etc. who have a clear. identifiable source of regular profitable income).
The vast majority of his wealth is is Tesla shares, which were at one point up 2,000% since Jan 2020. Off quite a bit this year though.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation. My reasons for thinking it are as follows. Use of a VPN, but is clearly authentically British. Beyond parody in her support for woke. Now turns out to be a writer, and a lesbian, characteristics shared with Leon's previous female personas. Writes in a very similar style. Short, sharp paragraphs, single word retorts.
I am not particularly upset about it, more bemused - indeed the sheer logistical prowess of managing two way conversations is quite astonishing.
He blew it. Perhaps deep down he knew his many apologies never rang entirely true, and there was little point in another hollow display of contrition. The tone he chose, with blame for the herd who moved against him, forces us to ask: was this the most ungracious departure in modern memory?
He could not build on his early promise, and he has left the country weaker. Is the standing of Britain stronger abroad than when he became prime minister? No. Is the unity of the United Kingdom more secure? No. Is the economy stronger? No. Did he establish strong relationships with the leaders of the United States, the EU, China and India? No. Did he make significant progress on levelling up and on a greener economy, his flagship policies? No. These are the criteria on which prime ministers are judged.
What an idiosyncratic leader like Johnson needed above all was a strong and capable team under him to maximise his strengths, not least in communications, enthusiasm and the big picture. But he never trusted anyone sufficiently to allow them to do the job. Nor did he trust his cabinet ministers enough…
He broke almost every rule about how to be effective: appoint the best people and stick with them; identify your core domestic agenda and hold relentlessly to it; don’t be distracted by the ephemeral or chase tomorrow’s headlines; and ensure that your personal conduct is beyond reproach.
Britain could withstand one Johnson: another in his ilk would risk serious damage. Those charged with choosing a successor would do well to think very seriously about this.
That rules out Truss. The country have had enough with self publicists. She's got a costume wardrobe which would be the envy of Johnson himself
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
And say hello PM Starmer and bye bye redwall at the next general election if tax rises and spending cuts is all Sunak has to offer as Tory MPs and Tory members will also be well aware
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
Did you see this link to this article about the abuse experienced by lesbians who refuse to have sex with male-bodied self-identified transwomen?
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation.
I wondered if Moon Rabbit was for a while. Or… now that I think of it, perhaps this entire site is one person's incredible magnum opus?
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
It won’t. Remain v Leave is a tissue in English politics as deep as Guelphs v Ghibbilenes (yes I know I’ve spelled that wrong but can’t be arsed…) in Late Medieval Italy, or Drefusards v Anti-Drefusards in early 20th century France. The former only really ended really after Frances I invaded uniting both sides, and the intellectual heirs of the Anti-Drefusards became the Vichy Government, who had a well publicised fate. Whether we had stayed or now we have gone it’s impossible to see how the issue is resolved without some huge change in circumstances resulting in the hatch being buried or one side being wholly discredited.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
The talk from the Davos economic forum was all that people just need to accept being a lot poorer, and no country should attempt to step out of line (eg on greenery) to avoid this pain. That is a dismal, distorted view of economies and their ability to thrive if allowed to do so. And it seems to me like Sunak is fully signed up to that. As Boris, I believe, saw, with his belated plan to reverse the increase in corporation tax (I mean what an effing stupid idea!) etc.
You yourself have shared many creative ideas for creating prosperity here. More than ever we need a creative leader who will defy the prevailing conditions, not just tell us about them in a nice suit.
I have never been a member of the Conservative party and am unlikely ever to be (or wish to be) one, but I would imagine a key aspect the party membership will look for in the next leader is the mandate of 2019. Johnson's Tories were elected on mandates which they may argue still exist, even though Johnson as a personality was largely unable to fulfil them. So support for policies that see through that mandate may be seen as important. This doesn't mean, for instance, keeping the Rwanda policy, but it does probably mean at least as hard a line on the EU as before, and presumably also some policies that could in some loose interpretation be classed as 'levelling up'.
In my relatively few posts on this site relating to the next Tory leader I have expressed preference for Javid. The new burst of support for him on here, no doubt because he was the first to resign from the cabinet, is thus very welcome. However, I can't help thinking that those currently regarding him as heroic would, if he became leader, suddenly rediscover things like his previous non-dom status. This isn't something that particularly angers me but I can see why it may put off some voters and it is an easy Labour attack line.
Javid's crucial and probably necessary role in Johnson eventually quitting may not be seen as so positive by a party membership which seems already to be perceiving Johnson as somehow hard-done-by, if anecdotes about constituency association letters are anything to go on.
Bear in mind that the current leader of the Labour party was loyal to Corbyn until the very end - he would not have become party leader otherwise. So, still hoping for Javid, but he is now one of the less likely candidates in my view.
Sunak, now the front-runner, has similar obvious Labour attack-lines, shallow though they may be (swimming pool, non-dom wife, etc) and again may be harmed in the eyes of the membership by his role in Johnson's downfall.
Truss really does enrage people, doesn't she? I've never quite understood why; her self-publicity has been no more blatant than Sunak's. The biggest slip-up I can see was not knowing the location of particular Russian cities in a heated exchange with her Russian counterpart. But given this was presumably leaked by Sergei 'Hitler was Jewish' Lavrov (who seems to have a woman problem in general given his similar treatment of Baerbock), I am inclined to overlook it. Still, I think she may be the opponent Labour most want to face, given the general visceral reaction against her, however deserved or undeserved it may be. If I were her, I would instead hope to become the first female Chancellor.
Mordaunt is the best parliamentary performer of the lot, but is otherwise an unkown quantity and may be held back by her position on the trans issue, in the eyes of the party membership.
IIn other news the first tranche of Ukrainian troops are coming to be trained in the UK. It all sounds good but the reality is that 10,000 troops is barely a fraction of what they actually need. I'm sure the mass mobilisation continues apace but it might unfortunately give the impression to Brits that the Ukrainian resistance is all rather small scale.
If we can train 10,000 other European countries ought to be able to train another 10,000 between them, and the Americans can train at least 50,000. And then you're talking serious numbers.
Assuming the requisite numbers actually exist. There have been a lot of Ukrainians volunteering for the army; how many more young and fairly young men are there to be called up? And if they are in the east of Ukraine how reliable are they likely to be? There is a certain amount of pro-Russian feeling there, or always used to be. If not"actual Russians".
There used to be some pro-Russian feeling, but the experience of war has almost completely dissipated that feeling. Having your home shelled and your neighbours killed will have that effect.
Ukraine has vast numbers of people signed up to territorial defence regiments, and other units, who are under arms, and in some cases on the front line, with little training. Anything we can do to provide more training will be helpful.
There was a good article (must find it) about how the experience of living in the areas taken over by Russia in 2014 had collapsed support among formerly pro-Russian Ukrainians. Literally gangster states - armed men stealing what they like.
Thanks; I'll be interested.
An example, is it not, of the abysmal level of competent of Russian government but does compare to some extent with the behaviour of the Russian troops in East Germany in 1945.
He blew it. Perhaps deep down he knew his many apologies never rang entirely true, and there was little point in another hollow display of contrition. The tone he chose, with blame for the herd who moved against him, forces us to ask: was this the most ungracious departure in modern memory?
He could not build on his early promise, and he has left the country weaker. Is the standing of Britain stronger abroad than when he became prime minister? No. Is the unity of the United Kingdom more secure? No. Is the economy stronger? No. Did he establish strong relationships with the leaders of the United States, the EU, China and India? No. Did he make significant progress on levelling up and on a greener economy, his flagship policies? No. These are the criteria on which prime ministers are judged.
What an idiosyncratic leader like Johnson needed above all was a strong and capable team under him to maximise his strengths, not least in communications, enthusiasm and the big picture. But he never trusted anyone sufficiently to allow them to do the job. Nor did he trust his cabinet ministers enough…
He broke almost every rule about how to be effective: appoint the best people and stick with them; identify your core domestic agenda and hold relentlessly to it; don’t be distracted by the ephemeral or chase tomorrow’s headlines; and ensure that your personal conduct is beyond reproach.
Britain could withstand one Johnson: another in his ilk would risk serious damage. Those charged with choosing a successor would do well to think very seriously about this.
That rules out Truss. The country have had enough with self publicists. She's got a costume wardrobe which would be the envy of Johnson himself
Truss's chances of victory might depend on the sincerity of all that Brexiteer praise of her signing trade deals around the world. MPs who believe what they tweeted might well vote for Truss. Those who were merely following CCHQ instructions may not.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation. My reasons for thinking it are as follows. Use of a VPN, but is clearly authentically British. Beyond parody in her support for woke. Now turns out to be a writer, and a lesbian, characteristics shared with Leon's previous female personas. Writes in a very similar style. Short, sharp paragraphs, single word retorts.
I am not particularly upset about it, more bemused - indeed the sheer logistical prowess of managing two way conversations is quite astonishing.
I believe well-to-do Victorians would sometimes send a troubled offspring off on a Grand Tour of Europe.
Nowadays one can do a grand tour AND keep in instant touch with his home in one or more personages.
Well, Bless our wealthy cotton socks. Maybe the Lord who created us is too omnipotent to enjoy His own handiwork and evolved us to do that for Him. Messily.
I don't know. There's something of the whiff of decay about it which hadn't struck me before. The image of a Cabinet Minister flashing their middle finger to a baying crowd is quite powerful. More in the still than the movie...
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
The sole question on the ballot paper was about leaving the EU. So the absolute start point was... leaving the EU. Neither Norway, Switzerland nor Turkey are in the EU though all have some degree of integration by it a CO, single market or free movement. So you can stay SM, CU or heck even do a Swiss and join Schengen (Though that might look a little odd) But to satisfy the question that was answered leaving the EU is neccesary. It was bizarre that most of the govts opponents in the 17-19 parliament didn't realise this. Another referendum on the sort of leaving we'd prefer (Full fat or Norway) might have been a good intermediate point, but you can't ask the same question before the initial implementation has been implemented, imagine if the SNP narrowly held the balance of power at the next election and another vote was held in Scottish constituencies with a single unionist candidate in each to "make sure" that is what the people err wanted..
I don't know. There's something of the whiff of decay about it which hadn't struck me before. The image of a Cabinet Minister flashing their middle finger to a baying crowd is quite powerful. More in the still than the movie...
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation.
I wondered if Moon Rabbit was for a while. Or… now that I think of it, perhaps this entire site is one person's incredible magnum opus?
It is remakable really. Me too on Moonrabbit, but if she is, she's an excellent one.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
You simply cannot say that. Female athletes are being attacked. So are lesbians and well known feminists. So are ordinary women who point out the need for single sex spaces or who do not subscribe to the most extreme version of trans ideology around.
The common factor is that they are women. And many of those who attack them are often, though not always, men. Plus ca change....
Ironically, the transpeople I know (and this is obviously anecdotal) are on the side of women and in despair at what the TRAs are doing and saying, because they think it undermines what transpeople need and will lead to a backlash. I hope that this does not happen.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
And say hello PM Starmer and bye bye redwall at the next general election if tax rises and spending cuts is all Sunak has to offer as Tory MPs and Tory members will also be well aware
I have never been a member of the Conservative party and am unlikely ever to be (or wish to be) one, but I would imagine a key aspect the party membership will look for in the next leader is the mandate of 2019. Johnson's Tories were elected on mandates which they may argue still exist, even though Johnson as a personality was largely unable to fulfil them. So support for policies that see through that mandate may be seen as important. This doesn't mean, for instance, keeping the Rwanda policy, but it does probably mean at least as hard a line on the EU as before, and presumably also some policies that could in some loose interpretation be classed as 'levelling up'.
In my relatively few posts on this site relating to the next Tory leader I have expressed preference for Javid. The new burst of support for him on here, no doubt because he was the first to resign from the cabinet, is thus very welcome. However, I can't help thinking that those currently regarding him as heroic would, if he became leader, suddenly rediscover things like his previous non-dom status. This isn't something that particularly angers me but I can see why it may put off some voters and it is an easy Labour attack line.
Javid's crucial and probably necessary role in Johnson eventually quitting may not be seen as so positive by a party membership which seems already to be perceiving Johnson as somehow hard-done-by, if anecdotes about constituency association letters are anything to go on.
Bear in mind that the current leader of the Labour party was loyal to Corbyn until the very end - he would not have become party leader otherwise. So, still hoping for Javid, but he is now one of the less likely candidates in my view.
Sunak, now the front-runner, has similar obvious Labour attack-lines, shallow though they may be (swimming pool, non-dom wife, etc) and again may be harmed in the eyes of the membership by his role in Johnson's downfall.
Truss really does enrage people, doesn't she? I've never quite understood why; her self-publicity has been no more blatant than Sunak's. The biggest slip-up I can see was not knowing the location of particular Russian cities in a heated exchange with her Russian counterpart. But given this was presumably leaked by Sergei 'Hitler was Jewish' Lavrov (who seems to have a woman problem in general given his similar treatment of Baerbock), I am inclined to overlook it. Still, I think she may be the opponent Labour most want to face, given the general visceral reaction against her, however deserved or undeserved it may be. If I were her, I would instead hope to become the first female Chancellor.
Mordaunt is the best parliamentary performer of the lot, but is otherwise an unkown quantity and may be held back by her position on the trans issue, in the eyes of the party membership.
You refer to the "mandate of 2019" but manifesto commitments from then have already been broken e.g. on rural broadband and the "triple lock".
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
I'm generally on the, "things are much better than they were" side of this debate, but there are some specific problems within cricket that mean it has probably been a brake on progress.
For example in club cricket there are still sometimes separate leagues for non-white teams, because club games and training would traditionally happen on days of the week that were difficult for Muslims. Black ex-players have been blocked from becoming umpires. Grassroots participation in cricket is way down, which means the next generation of players from a Caribbean background mostly didn't come through.
Essex is, I think, addressing the problem of recruiting south Asian cricketers in East London. Bopara and Hussein and a couple more came from that background, but for a while recruitment slowed. As I said I think the club are now addressing the situation!
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation.
I wondered if Moon Rabbit was for a while. Or… now that I think of it, perhaps this entire site is one person's incredible magnum opus?
My own view is that we're all figments of SeanT's drug-addled imagination, dreamt up whilst he's still asleep in a ditch in the South American mountains. The last twenty years have all been an invention of is subconscious.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation.
I wondered if Moon Rabbit was for a while. Or… now that I think of it, perhaps this entire site is one person's incredible magnum opus?
It is remakable really. Me too on Moonrabbit, but if she is, she's an excellent one.
I’ve found Moon Rabbit to be one of the most interesting posters on here. Slightly bonkers but in a good way.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
I'm generally on the, "things are much better than they were" side of this debate, but there are some specific problems within cricket that mean it has probably been a brake on progress.
For example in club cricket there are still sometimes separate leagues for non-white teams, because club games and training would traditionally happen on days of the week that were difficult for Muslims. Black ex-players have been blocked from becoming umpires. Grassroots participation in cricket is way down, which means the next generation of players from a Caribbean background mostly didn't come through.
A friend of mine was involved in schools cricket and taught mainly in Hackney. He would have problems when taking his teams to play some of the posher private schools in London when players didn't come fully kitted with the right equipment and clothing. It wasn't racism though just good old classism.
With several dozen, rather than a handful of these US MLRS systems, and sufficient supply of rockets, they would devastate the Russian offensive.
On the thread is also reports that the area around Kherson airport is being smashed. According to the NASA fire map it has been pounded for the last few days.
Ukraine are doing badly in the east where strategy seems to being driven by politics rather than battlefield conditions and well in the west despite having few troops and limited artillery
That's probably down to the fact that it *appears* that Russia is throwing most of its troops into the eastern areas, whilst the southern areas have fewer Russian troops, and they are generally of lower quality as they are only supposed to hold ground for the moment, rather than take it.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
Did you see this link to this article about the abuse experienced by lesbians who refuse to have sex with male-bodied self-identified transwomen?
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
You simply cannot say that. Female athletes are being attacked. So are lesbians and well known feminists. So are ordinary women who point out the need for single sex spaces or who do not subscribe to the most extreme version of trans ideology around.
The common factor is that they are women. And many of those who attack them are often, though not always, men. Plus ca change....
Ironically, the transpeople I know (and this is obviously anecdotal) are on the side of women and in despair at what the TRAs are doing and saying, because they think it undermines what transpeople need and will lead to a backlash. I hope that this does not happen.
Also, the only actual VIOLENCE I’ve seen is from TRAs roughing up feminists at rallies
It looks like pure misogyny, I expect it is. Incel men taking out their resentment
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
The one thing worse that relying on sub-samples is selective reliance on sub-samples.
Anyway, I'll take notice of the Scottish polling if and when the SNP ends up joining with the Conservatives to force a Lab/LD coalition UK government out of office.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
You simply cannot say that. Female athletes are being attacked. So are lesbians and well known feminists. So are ordinary women who point out the need for single sex spaces or who do not subscribe to the most extreme version of trans ideology around.
The common factor is that they are women. And many of those who attack them are often, though not always, men. Plus ca change....
Ironically, the transpeople I know (and this is obviously anecdotal) are on the side of women and in despair at what the TRAs are doing and saying, because they think it undermines what transpeople need and will lead to a backlash. I hope that this does not happen.
I've seen much real world reporting on real world abuse of athletes and feminists. Until today I'd never seen any such reporting on genuine, real world attacks on lesbians, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't really happening - as if it was, it would be getting reported.
Having read that BBC report, which includes real world reporting, I will put my hands up and say I got that wrong. It is happening. That is awful.
I'm sorry I got it wrong and gave the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't. Though, as always, I would only assign blame for abuse on the abusers (and those who defend the abuse) not on an entire class of people.
Trans people as a whole are no more responsible for some idiots engaging in the abuse, than men as a whole are responsible for men being rapist, or that women as a whole are responsible for the women who commit domestic violence etc
But its very, very sad to see that it is actually happening in the real world and its unacceptable that it is. I'm sorry in more ways than one that I was wrong on that.
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
The one thing worse that relying on sub-samples is selective reliance on sub-samples.
Anyway, I'll take notice of the Scottish polling if and when the SNP ends up joining with the Conservatives to force a Lab/LD coalition UK government out of office.
I don't know. There's something of the whiff of decay about it which hadn't struck me before. The image of a Cabinet Minister flashing their middle finger to a baying crowd is quite powerful. More in the still than the movie...
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
You simply cannot say that. Female athletes are being attacked. So are lesbians and well known feminists. So are ordinary women who point out the need for single sex spaces or who do not subscribe to the most extreme version of trans ideology around.
The common factor is that they are women. And many of those who attack them are often, though not always, men. Plus ca change....
Ironically, the transpeople I know (and this is obviously anecdotal) are on the side of women and in despair at what the TRAs are doing and saying, because they think it undermines what transpeople need and will lead to a backlash. I hope that this does not happen.
I've seen much real world reporting on real world abuse of athletes and feminists. Until today I'd never seen any such reporting on genuine, real world attacks on lesbians, so I was giving the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't really happening - as if it was, it would be getting reported.
Having read that BBC report, which includes real world reporting, I will put my hands up and say I got that wrong. It is happening. That is awful.
I'm sorry I got it wrong and gave the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't. Though, as always, I would only assign blame for abuse on the abusers (and those who defend the abuse) not on an entire class of people.
Trans people as a whole are no more responsible for some idiots engaging in the abuse, than men as a whole are responsible for men being rapist, or that women as a whole are responsible for the women who commit domestic violence etc
But its very, very sad to see that it is actually happening in the real world and its unacceptable that it is. I'm sorry in more ways than one that I was wrong on that.
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
The one thing worse that relying on sub-samples is selective reliance on sub-samples.
Anyway, I'll take notice of the Scottish polling if and when the SNP ends up joining with the Conservatives to force a Lab/LD coalition UK government out of office.
If you dislike subsamples, the full-sample Scottish polling is:
Re. the polling I do actually agree with @Leon about something.
I think Boris reached parts that no other tory will ever again reach (Penny M may come closest of the current bunch). He reached into the red wall. A lot of that was Dominic Cummings' engineering. Some of it was utterly shameless stirring of racist sentiments, nationalism and anti-woke bashing of the kind which is simply vile. Agree or not (Leon won't) with my last bit, the fact remains that, like Leon, I agree that he did reach into those red wall voting areas and got them supporting him. The last tory to achieve such a move was Margaret Thatcher with her Mondeo man and council house right to buy and, from the other side of the divide, Tony Blair with his reach into Middle Britain and Cool Britannia.
Many of these voters will now be lost to the tories and a lot of them are really angry at what has happened: go look at the comments on the Mail and Express websites.
So I think the Six (the VI) is complicated at the moment because it's masking a lot of tactical voting intentions as well as the red wall tory vote that is now lost.
I am FAR from convinced that after a honeymoon any other tory candidate will poll well.
I think the tories got themselves into a terrible bind: they appealed to a constituency that was not naturally theirs whilst screwing with their own.
By deposing Boris they are going to lose both. Labour double-digit poll leads for the next two years.
I’m not so sure. Some Tory voters (myself included) refused to vote Boris because of his utter incompetence for the key role.
There’ll be some ex Tory voters who’ll come back into the fold if a degree of sensible, competent government is shown.
I actually hadn’t read the contract, and now I’m like ???? This doofus agreed to SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to pay $44 billion????
Probably going to cost him $10bn plus to walk away.
His net worth will go up and down by that amount on a single day several times a year. Costly but not disastrous.
I struggle to comprehend Musk's wealth; he's like a human NFT worth as much as people are willing to assign to him (vs. e.g. Bezos, Gates etc. who have a clear. identifiable source of regular profitable income).
Musk has a clear, identifiable source of regular, profitable income: Tesla. Tesla is a profitable business.
SpaceX may or may not be profitable, but its not publicly traded.
However shares are not based on profits today, they're ultimately based upon expected dividends in the future* so Tesla's shares are based upon expectations of future profits more than current profit levels, but it is profitable.
* This was the subject of my Masters Dissertation incidentally, so I did a fair bit of research on this in the past, using 20th century data.
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
It won’t. Remain v Leave is a tissue in English politics as deep as Guelphs v Ghibbilenes (yes I know I’ve spelled that wrong but can’t be arsed…) in Late Medieval Italy, or Drefusards v Anti-Drefusards in early 20th century France. The former only really ended really after Frances I invaded uniting both sides, and the intellectual heirs of the Anti-Drefusards became the Vichy Government, who had a well publicised fate. Whether we had stayed or now we have gone it’s impossible to see how the issue is resolved without some huge change in circumstances resulting in the hatch being buried or one side being wholly discredited.
Being invaded by France might sort it. A sort of once in a 1000 year event.
Otherwise I agree.
There is in fact only one sane way forward, which is for the EU, UK and EFTA/EEA to recognise that the UK really is in a different position from others as a result of: size, being an island, relation with USA and former empire, having global English as our quotidien language, general bloody mindedness, myth of exceptionalism, 1940, having a robust view of democracy, common law tradition, Burkeanism, Test Matches and a few other things.
And that as a result, like Switzerland, everyone is best served by a unique deal, in which like NI, we are both in and not in the SM, that we have a special deal on FOM etc.
As this won't happen, only less good outcomes are available.
@BartholomewRoberts I’d like to think that I could publicly change my mind like you just did if shown evidence I was wrong: I suspect I would have prevaricated.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that either racism or homophobia is on the rise?
The overwhelming, independent, evidence is the polar opposite.
Independent studies show racism and hate crime is on the increase. So the opposite of your contention.
Anyone, ANYONE, who goes to a football game nowadays knows this is the case. It's a serious problem at the moment.
Cricket is I'm afraid facing a huge problem with it. As everyone knows.
Utter bollocks. Racism is a problem, but nothing like the problem it used to be. Any problem is too much though, so any residual racism should be eliminated. Cricket is primarily dealing with allegations of problems that existed and were badly handled pre-2015 too.
What's changed is that acceptance of racism has fallen away, the willingness of people to defend it has vanished, and the willingness of people to call it out has increased. So we talk about it more, even though its less common and normalised. That's a good thing. 👍
I would argue that cricket has been the most effectively anti-racist 'thing' in society over the last 30 years, in that it has, more than pretty much any other 'thing' effectively brought races together and given them something in common, without hectoring them.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
Personally I am pretty convinced that Heathener is another Leon creation.
I wondered if Moon Rabbit was for a while. Or… now that I think of it, perhaps this entire site is one person's incredible magnum opus?
It is remakable really. Me too on Moonrabbit, but if she is, she's an excellent one.
I thought MR might be a creation of Jack's. He's good at that sort of thing...
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
It won’t. Remain v Leave is a tissue in English politics as deep as Guelphs v Ghibbilenes (yes I know I’ve spelled that wrong but can’t be arsed…) in Late Medieval Italy, or Drefusards v Anti-Drefusards in early 20th century France. The former only really ended really after Frances I invaded uniting both sides, and the intellectual heirs of the Anti-Drefusards became the Vichy Government, who had a well publicised fate. Whether we had stayed or now we have gone it’s impossible to see how the issue is resolved without some huge change in circumstances resulting in the hatch being buried or one side being wholly discredited.
Being invaded by France might sort it. A sort of once in a 1000 year event.
Otherwise I agree.
There is in fact only one sane way forward, which is for the EU, UK and EFTA/EEA to recognise that the UK really is in a different position from others as a result of: size, being an island, relation with USA and former empire, having global English as our quotidien language, general bloody mindedness, myth of exceptionalism, 1940, having a robust view of democracy, common law tradition, Burkeanism, Test Matches and a few other things.
And that as a result, like Switzerland, everyone is best served by a unique deal, in which like NI, we are both in and not in the SM, that we have a special deal on FOM etc.
As this won't happen, only less good outcomes are available.
It sounds like your deal is a compromise between having the bits of the EU England likes, and not having the bits of the EU other countries like.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 9h Badenoch or Mordaunt? No-brainer for anyone on the Conservative mainstream or Right, isn't it? Badenoch or Braverman? Who's going to motivate voters & activists better? Badenoch or Sunak? High-spending had its chance Badenoch vs a posh bloke? Tory activists'll want something new
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
Did you see this link to this article about the abuse experienced by lesbians who refuse to have sex with male-bodied self-identified transwomen?
Anyone who abuses anyone for not having sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with, is no better than a rapist.
There was a good essay on this topic in the LRB, exploring the space around consent, the need for an absolute right to choose & refuse whoever we want (or do not want) to sleep with & how that impacts the wider issues around prejudice & identity & the modern world of dating.
No strong conclusions IIRC, but rather a “here’s how personal choices (which we have to defend, for obvious reasons) can feed into societal level prejudice that we might want to talk about, because that matters too”. This isn‘t (necessarily) about trans issues - the main focus of the essay was incel culture IIRC.
I’ll see if I can dig up the link - it might be online.
I actually hadn’t read the contract, and now I’m like ???? This doofus agreed to SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to pay $44 billion????
Probably going to cost him $10bn plus to walk away.
His net worth will go up and down by that amount on a single day several times a year. Costly but not disastrous.
I struggle to comprehend Musk's wealth; he's like a human NFT worth as much as people are willing to assign to him (vs. e.g. Bezos, Gates etc. who have a clear. identifiable source of regular profitable income).
Musk has a clear, identifiable source of regular, profitable income: Tesla. Tesla is a profitable business.
SpaceX may or may not be profitable, but its not publicly traded.
However shares are not based on profits today, they're ultimately based upon expected dividends in the future* so Tesla's shares are based upon expectations of future profits more than current profit levels, but it is profitable.
* This was the subject of my Masters Dissertation incidentally, so I did a fair bit of research on this in the past, using 20th century data.
My dissertation was spent smashing up train relays, so a slightly different topic.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
And say hello PM Starmer and bye bye redwall at the next general election if tax rises and spending cuts is all Sunak has to offer as Tory MPs and Tory members will also be well aware
Magic money tree
No politician's analysis or promises that don't deal holistically and factually with: spending (GDP%), taxation (GDP%), borrowing, inflation, debt and deficit have any meaning at all.
Which is why none are very good at them. Almost all of them (and the pundits and wonks) deal with them one at a time. This is just a conjuring trick.
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
It won’t. Remain v Leave is a tissue in English politics as deep as Guelphs v Ghibbilenes (yes I know I’ve spelled that wrong but can’t be arsed…) in Late Medieval Italy, or Drefusards v Anti-Drefusards in early 20th century France. The former only really ended really after Frances I invaded uniting both sides, and the intellectual heirs of the Anti-Drefusards became the Vichy Government, who had a well publicised fate. Whether we had stayed or now we have gone it’s impossible to see how the issue is resolved without some huge change in circumstances resulting in the hatch being buried or one side being wholly discredited.
Being invaded by France might sort it. A sort of once in a 1000 year event.
Otherwise I agree.
There is in fact only one sane way forward, which is for the EU, UK and EFTA/EEA to recognise that the UK really is in a different position from others as a result of: size, being an island, relation with USA and former empire, having global English as our quotidien language, general bloody mindedness, myth of exceptionalism, 1940, having a robust view of democracy, common law tradition, Burkeanism, Test Matches and a few other things.
And that as a result, like Switzerland, everyone is best served by a unique deal, in which like NI, we are both in and not in the SM, that we have a special deal on FOM etc.
As this won't happen, only less good outcomes are available.
It sounds like your deal is a compromise between having the bits of the EU England likes, and not having the bits of the EU other countries like.
There are lots of reasons why this won't happen. This is one of them. Though the idea itself is not irrational. Just like a united Ireland is not irrational.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
And say hello PM Starmer and bye bye redwall at the next general election if tax rises and spending cuts is all Sunak has to offer as Tory MPs and Tory members will also be well aware
Magic money tree
I've been quite impressed by Rishi's launch, but (admittedly as an uninvolved observer) I'm genuinely unsure if his pitch is a return to austerity or something else. We can all say we're in favour of sound economics, but he'll need to spell it out a bit more if he wants to avoid disappointment from day 1.
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
Did you see this link to this article about the abuse experienced by lesbians who refuse to have sex with male-bodied self-identified transwomen?
Anyone who abuses anyone for not having sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with, is no better than a rapist.
There was a good essay on this topic in the LRB, exploring the space around consent, the need for an absolute right to choose & refuse whoever we want (or do not want) to sleep with & how that impacts the wider issues around prejudice & identity & the modern world of dating.
No strong conclusions IIRC, but rather a “here’s how personal choices (which we have to defend, for obvious reasons) can feed into societal level prejudice that we might want to talk about, because that matters too”. This isn‘t (necessarily) about trans issues - the main focus of the essay was incel culture IIRC.
I’ll see if I can dig up the link - it might be online.
A very decent analysis but leaving out one crucial element: The truth that UK policy so failed from 1970-2016 that all solutions were massively sub-optimal, as we failed to shape the EU in ways which a clear majority of the UK population would find acceptable, and did so without asking them. At the same time we were so far in that 'out' was unacceptable too.
If we had stayed in the issue would never have gone away, it would be a huge and whale size issue whose parallel can be dimly seen in the failure of the SNP to go away after 2014.
Parliament of course should have united around 'Norway for Now' but that would have required courage and compromise. And of course would also have been sub-optimal.
Have you got a rough deadline for when the issue post 2016 will go away?
It won’t. Remain v Leave is a tissue in English politics as deep as Guelphs v Ghibbilenes (yes I know I’ve spelled that wrong but can’t be arsed…) in Late Medieval Italy, or Drefusards v Anti-Drefusards in early 20th century France. The former only really ended really after Frances I invaded uniting both sides, and the intellectual heirs of the Anti-Drefusards became the Vichy Government, who had a well publicised fate. Whether we had stayed or now we have gone it’s impossible to see how the issue is resolved without some huge change in circumstances resulting in the hatch being buried or one side being wholly discredited.
The Anti-Drefusards simply moved to the NF - Le Pens lot. A French friend commented on how you could tell a lot in some rural areas - older people of a certain inclination would have a picture of Petain on display in their homes…
I don't know. There's something of the whiff of decay about it which hadn't struck me before. The image of a Cabinet Minister flashing their middle finger to a baying crowd is quite powerful. More in the still than the movie...
2017 GE hustings
It's a still of her talking through a list of points, successively extending each digit in turn beyond the flexed others. The clue is that her mouth is just opening/closing (a 'm'?) and her attention is focussed in a completely different airt from the direction in which the finger is pointing.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 9h Badenoch or Mordaunt? No-brainer for anyone on the Conservative mainstream or Right, isn't it? Badenoch or Braverman? Who's going to motivate voters & activists better? Badenoch or Sunak? High-spending had its chance Badenoch vs a posh bloke? Tory activists'll want something new
I actually hadn’t read the contract, and now I’m like ???? This doofus agreed to SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE to pay $44 billion????
Probably going to cost him $10bn plus to walk away.
His net worth will go up and down by that amount on a single day several times a year. Costly but not disastrous.
I struggle to comprehend Musk's wealth; he's like a human NFT worth as much as people are willing to assign to him (vs. e.g. Bezos, Gates etc. who have a clear. identifiable source of regular profitable income).
Musk has a clear, identifiable source of regular, profitable income: Tesla. Tesla is a profitable business.
SpaceX may or may not be profitable, but its not publicly traded.
However shares are not based on profits today, they're ultimately based upon expected dividends in the future* so Tesla's shares are based upon expectations of future profits more than current profit levels, but it is profitable.
* This was the subject of my Masters Dissertation incidentally, so I did a fair bit of research on this in the past, using 20th century data.
My dissertation was spent smashing up train relays, so a slightly different topic.
Yours sounds more fun! Mine involved a lot of spreadsheets and some programming that I did to do parts of the analysis.
From memory my conclusion was that share prices are (in general) linked well to a multiplier of risk-averse time value of money expected value of future dividends, and that (in general) they tend to be reasonably accurate as such. Of course expectations can be wrong.
Whether Tesla sticks to the risk-averse element of that I would certainly be sceptical about, but its certainly right that TVM of EV of future dividends matters more than present ones.
If I had a vote and Rishi made the final two I'd take the punt. This nation needs someone who is willing to tell the truth to the public. The rest of the clown car (and Labour) are simply trying to hoodwink the public into believing that spending rises, tax cuts and just "believing" in the economy will be fine. It won't. We need spending cuts, starting yesterday. The nation is once again living well beyond its means and tax take is already at a record high. The only option left is spending cuts and entitlement cuts.
And say hello PM Starmer and bye bye redwall at the next general election if tax rises and spending cuts is all Sunak has to offer as Tory MPs and Tory members will also be well aware
Magic money tree
I've been quite impressed by Rishi's launch, but (admittedly as an uninvolved observer) I'm genuinely unsure if his pitch is a return to austerity or something else. We can all say we're in favour of sound economics, but he'll need to spell it out a bit more if he wants to avoid disappointment from day 1.
Yes, he needs to explain how his government will help me or you navigate the economic hurdles now immediately ahead. 'I'll not cut taxes whilst your life gets more and more difficult and you have less and less of your own money spare. But at least the deficit wont rise' is batshit crazy as a pitch. Theres got to be a 'thing' with it - fuel duty action, redistribution of tax burden off the lower end, some sort of infrastructure initiative, something really innovative on household energy etc etc
The blockquoting has gone haywire which is my fault as I was trying to pick it up from the thread that has now become a Boris Johnson i.e. ceased to be.
In particular it was this comment by Foxy: 'racism is either much more marginal or unconscious'.
Quite simply untrue, I'm afraid.
In fact, I'd say that since c. 2015 racism AND homophobia have been on the rise. Brexit has of course stirred that ugly cauldron.
I'm afraid it's alive and kicking and I was responding to the suggestion of the contrary. No need to overreact. It was supposed to be a debate.
Where is the evidence that homophobia is on the rise? As a society we are more open and tolerant than ever before.
There's definitely been a recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks.
And that's an exemplar of the kind of thing that is vile.
Why do you do it? Why do you think it's even remotely acceptable in a civilised society to post something like that? You think it's funny. It isn't.
You can take issue with “cocks” but it’s just vulgar slang
Indisputable? I dispute that there is a serious increase in hatred as such.
The "cotton ceiling" seems to be a myth spread by idiots on both sides online. Where is any such hatred happening in this country, in the real world?
It isn't hatred to oppose those who talk about "the cotton ceiling", but I struggle to find anyone in the real world who actually does. Could you name anyone in this country who actually hates people based on that?
I see you carefully say “real world” so I presume you’re ignoring the net
Yet you shouldn’t. Much of life now takes place online. It is life. See us on here!
And online you can see real and vicious bullying of women who object to the extreme trans agenda. Women lose jobs and careers over this. It’s very “real”
Absolutely I'm excluding the net, much of which is dominated by Russian trolls and not real people.
So yes, real people please. Perhaps you could name some real lesbians in this country and name some real people who've shown hatred towards them because of their refusal to sleep with "ladies with cocks".
So JKRowling doesn’t exist because it all happens online “which is full of Russian trolls”
OK…
JK Rowling is a lesbian being abused for not sleeping with ladies with cocks is she?
That's funny, I thought she was married to a man.
Which ladies with cocks have abused a married straight woman for being a lesbian that won't sleep with them?
No idea. It wasn’t my assertion
It IS my assertion that TRA bullying of women is a real thing. Rowling is an example. Multiple female Guardian journos. Julie Bindel. Kathleen Stock the academic. And many more
Yes that is real, but that wasn't the subject.
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
Did you see this link to this article about the abuse experienced by lesbians who refuse to have sex with male-bodied self-identified transwomen?
Anyone who abuses anyone for not having sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with, is no better than a rapist.
There was a good essay on this topic in the LRB, exploring the space around consent, the need for an absolute right to choose & refuse whoever we want (or do not want) to sleep with & how that impacts the wider issues around prejudice & identity & the modern world of dating.
No strong conclusions IIRC, but rather a “here’s how personal choices (which we have to defend, for obvious reasons) can feed into societal level prejudice that we might want to talk about, because that matters too”. This isn‘t (necessarily) about trans issues - the main focus of the essay was incel culture IIRC.
I’ll see if I can dig up the link - it might be online.
I don't know. There's something of the whiff of decay about it which hadn't struck me before. The image of a Cabinet Minister flashing their middle finger to a baying crowd is quite powerful. More in the still than the movie...
2017 GE hustings
It's a still of her talking through a list of points, successively extending each digit in turn beyond the flexed others. The clue is that her mouth is just opening/closing (a 'm'?) and her attention is focussed in a completely different airt from the direction in which the finger is pointing.
Comments
The junior ranks of government are swollen with low-wattage Spaff loyalists, presumably as a reward to fluff out their CV, give them a pay boost for doing very little over recess and an inevitable severance bung.
@Heathener, are you involved in cricket, at all? I am, a bit. I watch the game live. My daughter is a member at a local club. And I would describe your assertions about cricket as nonsense.
If not"actual Russians".
Ukraine has vast numbers of people signed up to territorial defence regiments, and other units, who are under arms, and in some cases on the front line, with little training. Anything we can do to provide more training will be helpful.
What no one, on either side, can say — and this will no doubt apply to whoever wins the Tory leadership — is that Johnson’s Brexit has left the UK in a long-term predicament, choosing between the subjugation of a Norway-style relationship or the self-harm of the status quo.
What he too has spotted is that Rishi will start his term as many incoming CEOs in business do - by trashing the record of their predecessor and recasting the accounts with write downs and provisions and disclosures so that year one of the new regime starts in crisis with a massive loss, from which the new guy can only improve.
Guardian 13 April.
Has she changed her mind?
Any appeal from an acquittal would only be for legal clarification; ie analysis of the judge's directions on law. The defence was morally quite strong but legally on rather novel ground.
Mercifully in this country jurors can do what they like by way of acquitting. (Seven Bishops Case; Clive Ponting etc)
It seems many Indian cricket fans cheer for England against anyone other than India. That’s up to them.
I know there were reports of trouble, but I’d be amazed if it’s more than an odd drunken confrontation.
Even the Yorkshire stuff can be overblown. I note that at least one of the staff sacked won a case for unfair dismissal.
We can always be better, and we try. But I really don’t recognise the world @Heathener describes.
I'm not sure the Conservative decline in VI has bottomed out yet, and it may therefore be some time before young Sunil can stop reporting how long it is since the last Tory poll lead.
It goes on and on and on
I guess it might be all Russian bots, but I don't think so
https://twitter.com/search?q=lesbian terf&src=typed_query
Scotland presents the same problem in parvo. ATM neither remaining in the union (deeply divisive) nor leaving (deeply divisive + potential for hard border up the road from me!) is remotely acceptable to the relevant population as a whole.
BTW after centuries, and 100 years after 1922 the island of Ireland remains deeply unsettled. So deadlines are not available.
I am not particularly upset about it, more bemused - indeed the sheer logistical prowess of managing two way conversations is quite astonishing.
For example in club cricket there are still sometimes separate leagues for non-white teams, because club games and training would traditionally happen on days of the week that were difficult for Muslims. Black ex-players have been blocked from becoming umpires. Grassroots participation in cricket is way down, which means the next generation of players from a Caribbean background mostly didn't come through.
Other evidence: Stonewall hired Morgan Page, a male-bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [the workshop] ‘overcoming the cotton ceiling’ and it is popular.
Catherine McGahy, the Garden Court Chambers QC, said that the term used should be "persuade" rather than "coerce". There is some interesting legal analysis in court cases about the extent to which being "persuaded" into sex amounts to genuine consent.
The abuse of some lesbians by some TRAs is not a myth. It may not be very widespread. We simply do not know. But no woman, lesbian or otherwise, should ever be abused by anyone, for setting boundaries about who she will or will not have sex with and to expect those boundaries to be respected.
To think otherwise is to have the mentality of a rapist. And, sorry, you don't get round that by accusing the woman of a "phobia".
The claim was that there has been a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks" and when that was disputed you said it was indisputable.
TRA bullying of feminists, which is very, very real and serious, is not a "recent increase in hatred towards lesbians who refuse to like "ladies" with cocks".
It is feminists and female athletes that seem to get the real brunt of TRA extremists far more than lesbians, in the real world. Can we agree on that?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385
And unlike Cleared Starmer he broke the covid laws.
You yourself have shared many creative ideas for creating prosperity here. More than ever we need a creative leader who will defy the prevailing conditions, not just tell us about them in a nice suit.
In my relatively few posts on this site relating to the next Tory leader I have expressed preference for Javid. The new burst of support for him on here, no doubt because he was the first to resign from the cabinet, is thus very welcome. However, I can't help thinking that those currently regarding him as heroic would, if he became leader, suddenly rediscover things like his previous non-dom status. This isn't something that particularly angers me but I can see why it may put off some voters and it is an easy Labour attack line.
Javid's crucial and probably necessary role in Johnson eventually quitting may not be seen as so positive by a party membership which seems already to be perceiving Johnson as somehow hard-done-by, if anecdotes about constituency association letters are anything to go on.
Bear in mind that the current leader of the Labour party was loyal to Corbyn until the very end - he would not have become party leader otherwise. So, still hoping for Javid, but he is now one of the less likely candidates in my view.
Sunak, now the front-runner, has similar obvious Labour attack-lines, shallow though they may be (swimming pool, non-dom wife, etc) and again may be harmed in the eyes of the membership by his role in Johnson's downfall.
Truss really does enrage people, doesn't she? I've never quite understood why; her self-publicity has been no more blatant than Sunak's. The biggest slip-up I can see was not knowing the location of particular Russian cities in a heated exchange with her Russian counterpart. But given this was presumably leaked by Sergei 'Hitler was Jewish' Lavrov (who seems to have a woman problem in general given his similar treatment of Baerbock), I am inclined to overlook it. Still, I think she may be the opponent Labour most want to face, given the general visceral reaction against her, however deserved or undeserved it may be. If I were her, I would instead hope to become the first female Chancellor.
Mordaunt is the best parliamentary performer of the lot, but is otherwise an unkown quantity and may be held back by her position on the trans issue, in the eyes of the party membership.
An example, is it not, of the abysmal level of competent of Russian government but does compare to some extent with the behaviour of the Russian troops in East Germany in 1945.
Nowadays one can do a grand tour AND keep in instant touch with his home in one or more personages.
Well, Bless our wealthy cotton socks. Maybe the Lord who created us is too omnipotent to enjoy His own handiwork and evolved us to do that for Him. Messily.
Except, guess where?
YouGov, the only pollster to correctly weigh geographical sub-samples:
London
Lab 51%
Con 20%
LD 19%
Grn 6%
Ref 1%
Rest of South
Con 35%
Lab 32%
LD 19%
Grn 8%
Ref 2%
Midlands and Wales
Lab 41%
Con 31%
LD 11%
Grn 7%
PC 4%
Ref 4%
North
Lab 52%
Con 27%
LD 9%
Grn 5%
Ref 5%
Scotland
SNP 49%
Lab 21%
Con 15%
LD 10%
Ref 3%
Grn 2%
(YouGov/The Times; Sample Size: 1,687; Fieldwork: 6-7 July 2022)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-minister-andrea-jenkyns-raised-a-finger-at-crowd-7t2brxpb7
Neither Norway, Switzerland nor Turkey are in the EU though all have some degree of integration by it a CO, single market or free movement.
So you can stay SM, CU or heck even do a Swiss and join Schengen (Though that might look a little odd)
But to satisfy the question that was answered leaving the EU is neccesary. It was bizarre that most of the govts opponents in the 17-19 parliament didn't realise this.
Another referendum on the sort of leaving we'd prefer (Full fat or Norway) might have been a good intermediate point, but you can't ask the same question before the initial implementation has been implemented, imagine if the SNP narrowly held the balance of power at the next election and another vote was held in Scottish constituencies with a single unionist candidate in each to "make sure" that is what the people err wanted..
The common factor is that they are women. And many of those who attack them are often, though not always, men. Plus ca change....
Ironically, the transpeople I know (and this is obviously anecdotal) are on the side of women and in despair at what the TRAs are doing and saying, because they think it undermines what transpeople need and will lead to a backlash. I hope that this does not happen.
Wallace might even get an SCon bounce in Scotland being a former MSP, Scots Guard and the type of dull, serious type like May and Brown Scots like
A chink of light on inflation, from Canada.
Anyone who abuses anyone for not having sex with anyone they don't want to have sex with, is no better than a rapist.
It looks like pure misogyny, I expect it is. Incel men taking out their resentment
It is the SLD 10% that ought to terrify the SCons. Tactical unwind is gonna hammer you lot.
It’s SNP vs Lab and Con vs SLD.
Anyway, I'll take notice of the Scottish polling if and when the SNP ends up joining with the Conservatives to force a Lab/LD coalition UK government out of office.
Having read that BBC report, which includes real world reporting, I will put my hands up and say I got that wrong. It is happening. That is awful.
I'm sorry I got it wrong and gave the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't. Though, as always, I would only assign blame for abuse on the abusers (and those who defend the abuse) not on an entire class of people.
Trans people as a whole are no more responsible for some idiots engaging in the abuse, than men as a whole are responsible for men being rapist, or that women as a whole are responsible for the women who commit domestic violence etc
But its very, very sad to see that it is actually happening in the real world and its unacceptable that it is. I'm sorry in more ways than one that I was wrong on that.
Sunak is spinning three years of his unfunded public spending hosepipe as maturity
AFP News Agency
@AFP
·
20m
#BREAKING Sri Lanka PM summons urgent cabinet meeting after president flees
Westminster SLab 23%
Holyrood SLab 25%
There’ll be some ex Tory voters who’ll come back into the fold if a degree of sensible, competent government is shown.
SpaceX may or may not be profitable, but its not publicly traded.
However shares are not based on profits today, they're ultimately based upon expected dividends in the future* so Tesla's shares are based upon expectations of future profits more than current profit levels, but it is profitable.
* This was the subject of my Masters Dissertation incidentally, so I did a fair bit of research on this in the past, using 20th century data.
Otherwise I agree.
There is in fact only one sane way forward, which is for the EU, UK and EFTA/EEA to recognise that the UK really is in a different position from others as a result of: size, being an island, relation with USA and former empire, having global English as our quotidien language, general bloody mindedness, myth of exceptionalism, 1940, having a robust view of democracy, common law tradition, Burkeanism, Test Matches and a few other things.
And that as a result, like Switzerland, everyone is best served by a unique deal, in which like NI, we are both in and not in the SM, that we have a special deal on FOM etc.
As this won't happen, only less good outcomes are available.
Running to get a big Office under one of the frontrunners? Or she this summer's Thatcher?
@andrew_lilico
·
9h
Badenoch or Mordaunt? No-brainer for anyone on the Conservative mainstream or Right, isn't it?
Badenoch or Braverman? Who's going to motivate voters & activists better?
Badenoch or Sunak? High-spending had its chance
Badenoch vs a posh bloke? Tory activists'll want something new
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico
No strong conclusions IIRC, but rather a “here’s how personal choices (which we have to defend, for obvious reasons) can feed into societal level prejudice that we might want to talk about, because that matters too”. This isn‘t (necessarily) about trans issues - the main focus of the essay was incel culture IIRC.
I’ll see if I can dig up the link - it might be online.
Edit: found it! https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex
Which is why none are very good at them. Almost all of them (and the pundits and wonks) deal with them one at a time. This is just a conjuring trick.
OT. Any Scots know a good hotel in Edinburgh or close by that might have three rooms mid August?
From memory my conclusion was that share prices are (in general) linked well to a multiplier of risk-averse time value of money expected value of future dividends, and that (in general) they tend to be reasonably accurate as such. Of course expectations can be wrong.
Whether Tesla sticks to the risk-averse element of that I would certainly be sceptical about, but its certainly right that TVM of EV of future dividends matters more than present ones.
'I'll not cut taxes whilst your life gets more and more difficult and you have less and less of your own money spare. But at least the deficit wont rise' is batshit crazy as a pitch. Theres got to be a 'thing' with it - fuel duty action, redistribution of tax burden off the lower end, some sort of infrastructure initiative, something really innovative on household energy etc etc
Benjamin
@screwlabour
Old favourite. Thornberry sat giving me the finger at the 2017 GE hustings because she went on a rant about social housing and I heckled "why do you buy so much of it to rent out then?"
https://twitter.com/screwlabour/status/1130197325765337089