Sunak still doesn’t have even 1/3 of votes. Have we seen this before?
The party doesn’t really want anyone, do they?
A failure of planning. They've had evidence for at least 9 months they would need to find someone else, but they couldn't do it.
This is why you have to avoid demagogues. They weaken and despoil everything, and make removing them a miserable, painful process.
And, sorry for banging this drum, it was ALWAYS going to end up this way. Plenty of people saw what kind of poisonous ambition he had and said you must be mad to want this. And those people were 100% right, all the way along.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister.
Can someone please explain , say Sunak gets 120 tomorrow . Does that mean the final round of votes is just 237 .
No, Sunak doesn't automatically qualify in that way. He still has to hold onto his MP votes in the final round of voting.
It would be quite extraordinary for him to be above the threshold in one round, and then fall below in the next, but there's a gaffe or a scandal out there big enough, if this storyline wants to be sufficiently entertaining.
Genuinely good result for Sunak. He's not the runaway winner, but there's some distance now at least, and the stop Rishi campaign has not yet resolved itself.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days does he just adore the Tories?
Can someone please explain , say Sunak gets 120 tomorrow . Does that mean the final round of votes is just 237 .
If I have understood the question; No.
Every vote round begins from the beginning. Mathematically you need 120 votes in the last MP round to be certain to win (one third of MPs +1), so 115/120 votes in an earlier round is an indication that you will be in the final 2, but not proof, and not bankable. The voters can all switch if they like.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days doe he just adore the Tories?
He goes after them sometimes, but I think he's gotten a bit locked into his gimmick. I still think he has his moments, but at times he's a cariacature of himself. Something you see a lot with public figures in fairness.
Sunak still doesn’t have even 1/3 of votes. Have we seen this before?
The party doesn’t really want anyone, do they?
A failure of planning. They've had evidence for at least 9 months they would need to find someone else, but they couldn't do it.
This is why you have to avoid demagogues. They weaken and despoil everything, and make removing them a miserable, painful process.
And, sorry for banging this drum, it was ALWAYS going to end up this way. Plenty of people saw what kind of poisonous ambition he had and said you must be mad to want this. And those people were 100% right, all the way along.
Though the fate of Hunt and Tugendhat shows that it's still far too early to say this. The final four were all still in Johnson's government two weeks ago. And saying that everything upto Pinchergate was kinda OK... well, it's not really good enough, is it?
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
Genuinely good result for Sunak. He's not the runaway winner, but there's some distance now at least, and the stop Rishi campaign has not yet resolved itself.
It's really not. The Conservative Party is riven.
I'm confused. I said it was a good result for him, I said nothing about if it was good for the party.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days doe he just adore the Tories?
It's true though. Lab the party of inclusion just doesn't trust non-white, non-male, non- North London candidates enough.
Shows the danger of losing candidates endorsing someone - if the result shows your backers went elsewhere (or else there was major shifting elsewhere to cover it) you just look silly.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days does he just adore the Tories?
Positive reinforcement. Perhaps in the beginning it was a genuinely held view of a critical friend of Labour, but he's had so much positive reinforcement from Tories in the media and twitter, that he's simply reflexively anti-Labour at all times now.
Probably repeating what others have said. But if Tuggers go to Kemi in the next round then Kemi leapfrogs Truss, Kemi gets most of Truss' transfers in the final round and gets to the final and then Kemi beats Rishi in the members votes. So potentially Tug makes Kemi PM ???
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days doe he just adore the Tories?
It's true though. Lab the party of inclusion just doesn't trust non-white, non-male, non- North London candidates enough.
Starmer was born south of the river. How much more inclusive do you want?
Genuinely good result for Sunak. He's not the runaway winner, but there's some distance now at least, and the stop Rishi campaign has not yet resolved itself.
It's really not. The Conservative Party is riven.
I'm confused. I said it was a good result for him, I said nothing about if it was good for the party.
I know. I say it's not a good result for him. He's not picking up the votes as much as he should. Because the Conservative Party is riven. There's going to be internal resistance to him from day 1 in parliament and in the shires. He's leading but bleeding.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
I'm against Truss for the reason I mentioned below - whether others agree with it is a different matter. But Badenoch strikes me as much more *interesting* than Truss, on both a personal and political level. Not that being more interesting would make her a better PM...
Probably repeating what others have said. But if Tuggers go to Kemimin the next round then Kemi leapfrogs Truss, Kemi gets most of Truss' transfers in the final round and gets to the final and then Kemi beats Rishi in the members votes. So potentially Tug makes Kemi PM ???
Has Tom endorsed Kemi? Because they are - from the face of it - on opposite sides of the Conservative Party.
Of course, if TT was responsible for Kemi leapfrogging Truss and Penny and into the final two, then he could probably have his pick of Cabinet posts.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
What is it with Hodges? Does he still just hate the non-Blairite incarnations of Labour, or these days doe he just adore the Tories?
It's true though. Lab the party of inclusion just doesn't trust non-white, non-male, non- North London candidates enough.
Starmer was born south of the river. How much more inclusive do you want?
Yikes! I had no idea. Lab go where no taxi fears to tread
It would look ridiculous but Sunak could lend Badenoch 20 tomorrow.
There's no way Sunak would come last with 95.
If he did that, he eliminates Truss on the spot.
The danger for Sunak with that is Truss voters get behind Badenoch then who goes on to win it. Playing silly games is dangerous.
Badenoch has been shifting her stance to make herself more palatable to the centre - not only with net zero but her comment that it's time to move on from Brexit.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Some of us don't have much choice, of course...
Indeed. And that's important to note. Many of us can talk about the joys of WfH; the poor sods I saw on the West Cambroune building site this morning cannot exactly be working from home. Someone else's future home, maybe...
I find I work much more effectively at home. And it's much cheaper. Plus the internet connection is about a thousand times better.
But bizarrely schools are actually going the other way. My school is now insisting we* stay an extra three hours a week on site next year to do work.
*I say 'we.' I am of course unaffected.
What?
Is your school trying to save money by having all their staff leave?
How very 2012.
Yes, although it's partly because they're under pressure from the drunken lunatics at the DfE to extend staff hours.
And that is because they are clueless, arrogant, stupid, lazy and incompetent as well as drunk.
The longer it goes on with Sunak as the clear frontrunner, but with any worries about the damage the process might be doing to the party continuing, the more the temptation for Tories will be to accelerate the process in some way, to minimise the damage and streamline the process.
Boris Johnson will do almost anything to stop this happening, as his parting contribution. He's very good at vengeance, and keeping and bearing grudges.
He's ahead, but in no way a clear frontrunner. Only five candidates, and he's still not got a third of the votes.
Add in that various members polling over the last week suggests he could lose to any one of these candidates, and you've still got a very tight race.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
Sunak, Mordaunt and Truss looks to be the final 3, but if Truss limps home in second place in the final MP vote, she does look very much a distant second in the MPs eyes. How does that affect the members thinking? If Truss won from that position, she would find a palpable lack of enthusiasm from her colleagues.
Penny is done. Think Kemi is done too tomorrow which means Liz is in prime position to make the final two with Rishi.
Yes. Sunak is safe. It surely looks bad for Mordaunt to have lost votes… well, a vote. Badenoch needs 13 more from Tugendhat’s transfers than Truss to tie. I just don’t see her doing that. So Kemi out next round, and her transfers will push Truss above Mordaunt… which is what I’ve been saying for ages (OK, maybe 3 days).
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
What the country needs is Truss's support to go to Badenoch right now, not the other way round. Sunak v Badenoch would be a top quality fight between the best quality candidates. The thought of a second/third rater being in the final and even winning is dire.
Tories might ask themselves: what does Starmer least want: answer, Badenoch v Sunak.
Probably repeating what others have said. But if Tuggers go to Kemi in the next round then Kemi leapfrogs Truss, Kemi gets most of Truss' transfers in the final round and gets to the final and then Kemi beats Rishi in the members votes. So potentially Tug makes Kemi PM ???
I'm pretty sure that Anne Marie Trevelyan said when interviewed shortly after the vote that Tuggers will vote as a bloc and won't vote for Penny. Did I hear that right and if so surely this is hugely significant to how things pan out?
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
As has been pointed out below, are Badenoch's supporters there because they are anti-woke Brexiteers or because they want a change? That is the question.
If KB wants to stay in the campaign, they need over the next few hours to be putting in the message that LT would lead the Tories to electoral oblivion and, even if they are not sure of the others, they need LT out.
A brave call earlier from me but Badenoch did pretty well.
She's still 13 behind Truss having only been 10 behind after the first round. Her gap to Mordaunt is 24 having been 27 on the first ballot so she's not picking up large numbers of votes from other candidates.
Sunak looks certain to be in the top two and the question is whether Truss, having cut the gap from 19 after the first round to 11 now can be in a position to overhaul Mordaunt in the final ballot round.
The question is now how Tugendhat's votes tomorrow and presumably Badenoch's votes on Wednesday will split between the other candidates.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
As has been pointed out below, are Badenoch's supporters there because they are anti-woke Brexiteers or because they want a change? That is the question.
If KB wants to stay in the campaign, they need over the next few hours to be putting in the message that LT would lead the Tories to electoral oblivion and, even if they are not sure of the others, they need LT out.
Well, for now we're asking what TT voters are, because it is his supporters who are going to be distributed - plus, of course, any switching between candidates.
And we all know one: PB's own @Tissue_Price. Has anyone spoken to him?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
#woketakes
And he's Asian.
Absolutely bizarre to describe Rishi Sunak as “black”.
Why would a young black woman become a Tory? I hope people on the left take the points she's making seriously. I also note that there is some evidence that US politics is starting to become less racialised in voting patterns.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
I think Truss’s chances of making the final two are better: let’s say 90%. What happens in the membership vote… I really don’t know, so I’ll have to say it’s 50/50. So 45% Truss, 50% Sunak and 5% Mordaunt would be my suggestion.
Re: who Tory MPs might want or NOT want based on personal contacts and inside info, quite a while back a Republican member of the King County Council died, thus creating a vacancy that under state law was filled by appointment.
The group doing the appointing being the surviving members of KCC, from a shortlist of three nominated by Republican precinct committee officers of the council district.
One who made the shortlist - indeed topped it - was the chief aide of the late councilmember, who was also a state senator and committee chair. Who was notorious for her outbursts, which led several times to official investigation & censure due to staff complaints.
Yours truly was asked on several occasions, by legislative staffers (Dems) if I could use my clout (non-existent) to persuade Dem councilmembers to vote for the aide/senator to fill the KCC appointment.
"Hell no" being the short answer. For as I explained, the members of the county council (of both parties) they don't want her, for the same reason that you guys (ditto) want to get rid of her.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Question, do you know any actual trans women?
Most trans women, the second they go on hormones, that puts an end to their willy - it doesn't work any more.
I am not trying to denigrate your position at all. I'm sure most people IRL would say I'm somewhere between "hard right" "reactionary" "libertarian" if I'm lucky.
But knowing and speaking to actual trans women has made me realise how vulnerable they are and how they are demonised as "men" when in fact their actions and their behaviour is anything but.
I understand that there are certain men who want to take advantage of this and manipulate the system for their own gain, and I think women's rights should be respected.
But I do urge you to chat to some trans women to see the flip side of the coin to how they are treated. Many of them have experienced horrific violence at the hands of men and deserve protection.
Yes I do. I have a close friend. And I have someone in my family.
I have spoken to them at length about this issue. Most do not have surgery or hormones - not least because of the delays in getting medical treatment and because their medical consequences are not always very nice.
They understand womens' concerns and do not seek to insert themselves in womens' spaces. And do not do so. What they find baffling is the sort of transpeople who claim to be women but who show no empathy for womens' concerns. They worry that some of these people are not genuinely trans at all but those with the sort of fetishes (autogynephilia, for instance) which seek to humiliate women.
I absolutely take the point that trans people must be protected from violence against them. That is why I think that provision should be made for unisex loos, changing rooms and other intimate spaces where they are free from risk without impinging on womens' needs. That is a practical and sensible solution. That coupled with many more resources into the sort of medical care those with gender dysphoria need. But this practical solution is not the one advanced by TRAs. They are obsessed with taking away womens rights and spaces. This only benefits sexists and male predators.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak 10 Morduant 5 Truss 6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
As has been pointed out below, are Badenoch's supporters there because they are anti-woke Brexiteers or because they want a change? That is the question.
If KB wants to stay in the campaign, they need over the next few hours to be putting in the message that LT would lead the Tories to electoral oblivion and, even if they are not sure of the others, they need LT out.
Well, for now we're asking what TT voters are, because it is his supporters who are going to be distributed - plus, of course, any switching between candidates.
And we all know one: PB's own @Tissue_Price. Has anyone spoken to him?
Genuinely good result for Sunak. He's not the runaway winner, but there's some distance now at least, and the stop Rishi campaign has not yet resolved itself.
It's really not. The Conservative Party is riven.
I'm confused. I said it was a good result for him, I said nothing about if it was good for the party.
I know. I say it's not a good result for him. He's not picking up the votes as much as he should. Because the Conservative Party is riven. There's going to be internal resistance to him from day 1 in parliament and in the shires. He's leading but bleeding.
Personally think it's pretty decent result for Sunak, considering the wacking he took thanks to Boris (and himself) just a few months ago, and also the fractious (even by Tory standards) state of the Tory Party.
Clearly a CUP mega-clusterfucq. Couldn't happen to nicer bunch of girls, boys & Bullingtonians (actual & wannabe).
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Ms Free, before you accuse other people out for 'ignorant comments', I might suggest you remove the plank from your own eye.
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
The requirements are for medical evidence. It is a paper exercise. There is no requirement for friends or family or other evidence that a person uses loos or dresses as a woman. So you are wrong on this.
You are also wrong in stating that I am an extremist because I would ask a person with a male body who is of the male sex to use a loo or changing room which is not a woman's one. Why? Because this is the current law. It is lawful to exclude a transwoman from such places in the grounds of sex under the Equality Act.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. I have never pretended to speak for anyone other than myself nor have I sought to define femininity. But what constitutes the female sex is clear. And the male sex is not - and cannot - turn into the female sex.
As for harm - what harm is caused by asking a TW to use a loo which is unisex rather than a female one? The risks of harm are very much greater for women. 98% of all sexual assaults are carried out by men and such evidence as there is shows that transgender people - TW, even after full transition - have the same offending rates and the same types of offences as men. In short their gender change does not make them less of a risk to women. This does not of course deal with the very much greater risk of men claiming to be women even though they do have any sort of dysphoria.
"I am who I say I am" is the MO of every fraudster who has ever lived, financial or sexual, and it is only the naive or wilfully ignorant who think otherwise.
TW should be allowed to live their lives. But what they cannot be allowed to do is make it difficult or impossible for women to live their lives freely without fear or a lack of dignity. Nor are they entitled to demand that women give up the rights they have.
You claim to have the magic ability to tell who is female, particularly in the context of when people enter a ladies toilet. That is ridiculous.
And you pretend to speak for all women. Read what you wrote. That too is ridiculous.
Trans people are not making it impossible or difficult for women to live their lives freely or without fear of a lack of dignity. If that is your position and view, then I am sorry - but again, you do not speak for all women.
What you want is unpoliceable and will cause hurt when you get it wrong. Because however much you might think you can tell when a man is pretending to be a woman, you *will* get it wrong.
Just think of the hurt you will cause. But I doubt you care.
Interesting that Tom Tugendhat supporter Anne-Marie Trevelyan just praised Kemi Badenoch's campaign as well as TT's. Maybe she could get some votes from TT supporters, which is not what I was expecting before.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Ms Free, before you accuse other people out for 'ignorant comments', I might suggest you remove the plank from your own eye.
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
The requirements are for medical evidence. It is a paper exercise. There is no requirement for friends or family or other evidence that a person uses loos or dresses as a woman. So you are wrong on this.
You are also wrong in stating that I am an extremist because I would ask a person with a male body who is of the male sex to use a loo or changing room which is not a woman's one. Why? Because this is the current law. It is lawful to exclude a transwoman from such places in the grounds of sex under the Equality Act.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. I have never pretended to speak for anyone other than myself nor have I sought to define femininity. But what constitutes the female sex is clear. And the male sex is not - and cannot - turn into the female sex.
As for harm - what harm is caused by asking a TW to use a loo which is unisex rather than a female one? The risks of harm are very much greater for women. 98% of all sexual assaults are carried out by men and such evidence as there is shows that transgender people - TW, even after full transition - have the same offending rates and the same types of offences as men. In short their gender change does not make them less of a risk to women. This does not of course deal with the very much greater risk of men claiming to be women even though they do have any sort of dysphoria.
"I am who I say I am" is the MO of every fraudster who has ever lived, financial or sexual, and it is only the naive or wilfully ignorant who think otherwise.
TW should be allowed to live their lives. But what they cannot be allowed to do is make it difficult or impossible for women to live their lives freely without fear or a lack of dignity. Nor are they entitled to demand that women give up the rights they have.
You claim to have the magic ability to tell who is female, particularly in the context of when people enter a ladies toilet. That is ridiculous.
And you pretend to speak for all women. Read what you wrote. That too is ridiculous.
Trans people are not making it impossible or difficult for women to live their lives freely or without fear of a lack of dignity. If that is your position and view, then I am sorry - but again, you do not speak for all women.
What you want is unpoliceable and will cause hurt when you get it wrong. Because however much you might think you can tell when a man is pretending to be a woman, you *will* get it wrong.
Just think of the hurt you will cause. But I doubt you care.
I do care. A member of my family is trans. And what a disgusting thing to say to a woman who has been raped and assaulted on multiple occasions. As most women have. If we want spaces free from men it is because we know the harm that men can do. And, guess what, men don't come with a handy mark telling us who is a predator and who isn't. Just because a man says he is trans or wears a dress does not make him less of a threat.
Women are hard wired to tell who is a woman and who is a man. It is not magic. It is essential. Our lives depend on it. Men's don't. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
But since this thread is over and we have different positions there is little point continuing. There are other matters to discuss.
I hope everybody took Raab advice to keep cool by heading to lie on the beach....
Off to the seaside tomorrow*
It was 37 degrees a few minutes ago.
I actually had to unpeel myself from my office chair.
Will somebody please sacrifice a virgin to the Gods so they can change the weather.
*I wish
I've persuaded Mrs J not to drive into work tomorrow, 50 mins there, 50 mins back. Although it's scorchio in our study, it's better than being in a car for 100-120 minutes in this heat.
Some of us don't have much choice, of course...
Indeed. And that's important to note. Many of us can talk about the joys of WfH; the poor sods I saw on the West Cambroune building site this morning cannot exactly be working from home. Someone else's future home, maybe...
I find I work much more effectively at home. And it's much cheaper. Plus the internet connection is about a thousand times better.
But bizarrely schools are actually going the other way. My school is now insisting we* stay an extra three hours a week on site next year to do work.
*I say 'we.' I am of course unaffected.
What?
Is your school trying to save money by having all their staff leave?
How very 2012.
Yes, although it's partly because they're under pressure from the drunken lunatics at the DfE to extend staff hours.
And that is because they are clueless, arrogant, stupid, lazy and incompetent as well as drunk.
Please stop saying DfE are drunken lunatics.
There is a perfectly nice chap who lives on the street locally, who is nearly permanently drunk and shouts at pigeons. As far as I am aware he hasn’t tried to destroy education locally or nationally.
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Ms Free, before you accuse other people out for 'ignorant comments', I might suggest you remove the plank from your own eye.
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
The requirements are for medical evidence. It is a paper exercise. There is no requirement for friends or family or other evidence that a person uses loos or dresses as a woman. So you are wrong on this.
(snip)
1a of section 2: "has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,"
(I believe it is one year in Scotland.) How is using a male toilet living in their acquired gender? (for male to female)
But it's worse than that. Say they're living their lives in their acquired gender, i.e. a woman. And they go into male toilets. Do you think a man dressed as a woman will face no potential violence or issues going into a male toilet?
The TERF-led campaign against Penny has worked well, hasn't it?
It's a shame they're too thick to realise that they've sided with some people who will soon be going after them...
Radical Feminists in the Tory Party?
Er ...
Some in the Tory Party are the TERF's useful idiots.
Which is exactly the problem. The same sort of dinosaurs within the Conservative Party who spit their tea out at the thought of anyone being any different to them, whether in gender, race, sexuality or anything else, are the same sort who will be spitting their tea out at other things in the future. like same-sex marriage et al. As we are seeing in the US.
They really are dinosaurs.
The 2nd time on this thread you've made this ignorant comment.
Womens' rights under the Equality Act have been under sustained attack now for a number of years by TRA extremists (generally on the left). They want to abolish the single sex exemptions under that Act & the offence of rape by deception. They've relentlessly attacked online any woman objecting to this, sometimes in the most lurid & violent of terms; they've created an atmosphere where women have been hounded out of their jobs & had to go to law to get their rights; they've defamed women, been forced to apologise & pay compensation by the courts; they've attacked women-only meetings (most recently in Bristol where a friend of mine, married to a transgender person, was present & saw the threats of violence from men).
Today they're attacking Rachel Reeves for saying - in her words - "Biology is important. A woman is somebody with a biology that is different from a man's biology." They've attacked Rosie Duffield & other Labour women MPs who have sought to stand up for women's rights.
These attacks are supported by a well-funded lobby group that has sought to misrepresent existing equality law, sought to redefine homosexuality as same-gender attraction & has attacked lesbians who say they're not attracted to male bodies. It spat out its dummy when the ECHR pointed out that there are 9 protected characteristics under the EA, it has a duty to consider them all & no one group's rights take priority over another. It even sought to attack the EHRC at the UN & get its UN designation revoked.
The dinosaurs are those who do this, who support this attack on women, their rights & who are dismissive of the reason why such rights exist: the need to be protected from assault, the need for privacy & dignity in intimate situations.
Let me spell this out to you: - it is to ensure that teenage girls or women with heavy periods do not have to go into a loo with stains on her clothes or wash out her knickers in the presence of men or boys; - it is to ensure that women suffering miscarriages do not have to have men present while cleaning up the blood pouring down their legs; - it is to ensure that women who are breast feeding do not have to express milk in front of male strangers; - it is to ensure that Muslim women can wash for their prayers without men present; - it is to ensure that when women are in a state of deshabille in changing rooms they are not being watched by male strangers; - it is to ensure that the disabled or elderly needing intimate care can insist on a same sex carer not a man to wipe their bottom or change their tampon.
It is not because people don't like difference. It is because they object to being told that they can't have boundaries & have them respected.
No political party is campaigning to remove transpeople's existing rights under the GRA or the EA. But there are those seeking to do this to women. So we don't need to wait for the future or for the US.
Ms Free, before you accuse other people out for 'ignorant comments', I might suggest you remove the plank from your own eye.
*You* want to remove the rights for transgender people from being able to change gender. Because you won't let them use women's toilets. Which they need to do by law for a year or two, and which is a reasonable requirement IMO.
Let me quote back something you said the other day. There is a great deal to say about it: "Women can always tell when a man pretends to be a woman. And I'd tell them to use the men's." (*)
1) You do not speak for all women. I have asked a couple of women, and they disagree with your comments above, one quite fiercely. This is not the first time you have deigned to speak for all women.
2) Women come in all types, shapes and sizes. Some look a little androgynous. Others, including some gay women, choose to look a little androgynous. Others may not fit your idea of 'woman'. Particularly ones that may be of other ethnicities. Or ones who have had cancer. Or ones who are disabled. Or black. Or just *different*.
3) Trans people come in all types, shapes and sizes. They are not always cartoonish and obvious. Rarely, IME, because many of them just want to get on with their lives without getting hassled by bigots.
4) Just think for a moment: if you are wrong, and tell a woman who is a woman to go and use the male facilities, what harm are you causing them? How would you feel is someone said to you that you had to use the gents because you are not a lady?
5) What gives you the right to police this? If not you, who?
6) How closely do you 'examine' the people who come into the ladies?
7) Why not let people be what they want to be, as long as they do not hurt other people?
8) How common do you really thing this is?
You are the extremist. Your position will cause no end of harm to trans people and women who do not match your ideal of what a 'woman' is.
The requirements are for medical evidence. It is a paper exercise. There is no requirement for friends or family or other evidence that a person uses loos or dresses as a woman. So you are wrong on this.
You are also wrong in stating that I am an extremist because I would ask a person with a male body who is of the male sex to use a loo or changing room which is not a woman's one. Why? Because this is the current law. It is lawful to exclude a transwoman from such places in the grounds of sex under the Equality Act.
The rest of your post is irrelevant. I have never pretended to speak for anyone other than myself nor have I sought to define femininity. But what constitutes the female sex is clear. And the male sex is not - and cannot - turn into the female sex.
As for harm - what harm is caused by asking a TW to use a loo which is unisex rather than a female one? The risks of harm are very much greater for women. 98% of all sexual assaults are carried out by men and such evidence as there is shows that transgender people - TW, even after full transition - have the same offending rates and the same types of offences as men. In short their gender change does not make them less of a risk to women. This does not of course deal with the very much greater risk of men claiming to be women even though they do have any sort of dysphoria.
"I am who I say I am" is the MO of every fraudster who has ever lived, financial or sexual, and it is only the naive or wilfully ignorant who think otherwise.
TW should be allowed to live their lives. But what they cannot be allowed to do is make it difficult or impossible for women to live their lives freely without fear or a lack of dignity. Nor are they entitled to demand that women give up the rights they have.
You claim to have the magic ability to tell who is female, particularly in the context of when people enter a ladies toilet. That is ridiculous.
And you pretend to speak for all women. Read what you wrote. That too is ridiculous.
Trans people are not making it impossible or difficult for women to live their lives freely or without fear of a lack of dignity. If that is your position and view, then I am sorry - but again, you do not speak for all women.
What you want is unpoliceable and will cause hurt when you get it wrong. Because however much you might think you can tell when a man is pretending to be a woman, you *will* get it wrong.
Just think of the hurt you will cause. But I doubt you care.
I do care. A member of my family is trans. And what a disgusting thing to say to a woman who has been raped and assaulted on multiple occasions. As most women have. If we want spaces free from men it is because we know the harm that men can do. And, guess what, men don't come with a handy mark telling us who is a predator and who isn't. Just because a man says he is trans or wears a dress does not make him less of a threat.
Women are hard wired to tell who is a woman and who is a man. It is not magic. It is essential. Our lives depend on it. Men's don't. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
But since this thread is over and we have different positions there is little point continuing. There are other matters to discuss.
Why is it disgusting? You may not have noticed (as it does not involve trans), but I have been one of the keenest people on here to highlight the sickening levels of abuse of all sorts, in all directions, that we face in this country: whether the perpetrators and victims are male or female, young or old, related or strangers. The levels of violence in this country are shocking. And most people sadly just go "Meh!"
I am very anti-rape and anti-abuse - not that I should really have to say that. But your pernicious campaign to stop trans people from using female loos will end up causing more harm for people, not less. It is an easy bandwagon for those who wish to pretend they care to jump on, without tackling the massive pile of other issues.
And again, you say 'we' as if you speak for all women. You do not.
"Women are hard wired to tell who is a woman and who is a man. It is not magic."
Do you really believe that? from a glance at someone entering a toilet? If so, you have not had a great deal of experience of transvestites in particular. And again: what when you get it wrong? What happens when you tell a woman who has lost her hair and had a mastectomy because of cancer that she need to go to the male loo because she does not look 'male'? Or a lesbian who likes looking butch? Or just some woman who looks androgynous?
Women using loos need to be free from such policing as well.
Rapists are rapists. Not all men are rapists - in fact, few are. In the same way, not all trans people are rapists.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
Isn't someone going to point out that Rishi is the only man left in it, and he's not black.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 15m Confirmed. The Tories are now going to either elect their third female leader and Prime Minister or Britain’s first black Prime Minister. Labour, meanwhile, cling desperately to their white men from north London.
Isn't someone going to point out that Rishi is the only man left in it, and he's not black.
Not unless they want the label of pedant, which is a great and genuine honour on this website.
Comments
This is why you have to avoid demagogues. They weaken and despoil everything, and make removing them a miserable, painful process.
And, sorry for banging this drum, it was ALWAYS going to end up this way. Plenty of people saw what kind of poisonous ambition he had and said you must be mad to want this. And those people were 100% right, all the way along.
It would be quite extraordinary for him to be above the threshold in one round, and then fall below in the next, but there's a gaffe or a scandal out there big enough, if this storyline wants to be sufficiently entertaining.
Every vote round begins from the beginning. Mathematically you need 120 votes in the last MP round to be certain to win (one third of MPs +1), so 115/120 votes in an earlier round is an indication that you will be in the final 2, but not proof, and not bankable. The voters can all switch if they like.
I think most of us thought that Braverman's votes would go to candidates on the Right: i.e. Truss and Badenoch. But the big beneficiary was Sunak.
With TT now out the race, the question is what happens with his votes. He was the obvious centrist candidate, and Sunak and Morduant are the two likely beneficiaries on that basis. But then again, I'd have expected Truss and Badenoch to benefit more from Braverman's departure.
FWIW, I think the TT votes split
10 Sunak
10 Morduant
5 Truss
6 Badenoch
Can Badenoch overhaul Truss here? I think that's going to be extremely challenging. She's 13 behind, and not an obvious beneficiary from TT departing the race. She therefore needs direct Truss to Badenoch switchers, and she lacks a platform - like the weekend's debates - to make it happen.
I think it is therefore unlikely that she does. I also think that it is now essentially certain that Sunak is in the final two.
It therefore comes down to the question of whether it is Truss or Morduant in the final two against Sunak. FWIW, I think Morduant is the opponent that Sunak fears more in the final two. I also think that more of Badenoch's support will go to Truss than Morduant.
So... I think the most likely final two is Sunak v Truss. Either of those could win with the Conservative members. Indeed, I'd reckon Liz is probably very slightly underpriced, because I think she's a 75% chance of making the final two, and probably a 55-60% chance against Rishi if she gets there.
Indeed, given I think Rishi loses 60% of the time to either Morduant or Truss, I think he is probably slightly too short.
@MattChorley
Who would you like to see win?
Sunak
Sunak
Sunak
Tugendhat
Sunak/Tugendhat
Sunak
These are 2019 Tory voters in red wall marginal of Newcastle under Lyme
Imagine if she does win. Won’t be a happy camp at all
Badenoch + 9
Truss + 7
Mordaunt - 1
Tugendhat - 1 and eliminated. A shame. He seems to have done best in the debates.
If Badenoch got all of Tugendhat's votes (unlikely I imagine) she'd overtake both Truss and Mordaunt.
When is the next round?
And it's a dangerous game to go around lending support, to try and eliminate a feared opponent.
Of course, if TT was responsible for Kemi leapfrogging Truss and Penny and into the final two, then he could probably have his pick of Cabinet posts.
And that is because they are clueless, arrogant, stupid, lazy and incompetent as well as drunk.
Add in that various members polling over the last week suggests he could lose to any one of these candidates, and you've still got a very tight race.
Tories might ask themselves: what does Starmer least want: answer, Badenoch v Sunak.
If KB wants to stay in the campaign, they need over the next few hours to be putting in the message that LT would lead the Tories to electoral oblivion and, even if they are not sure of the others, they need LT out.
A brave call earlier from me but Badenoch did pretty well.
She's still 13 behind Truss having only been 10 behind after the first round. Her gap to Mordaunt is 24 having been 27 on the first ballot so she's not picking up large numbers of votes from other candidates.
Sunak looks certain to be in the top two and the question is whether Truss, having cut the gap from 19 after the first round to 11 now can be in a position to overhaul Mordaunt in the final ballot round.
The question is now how Tugendhat's votes tomorrow and presumably Badenoch's votes on Wednesday will split between the other candidates.
And he's Asian.
And we all know one: PB's own @Tissue_Price. Has anyone spoken to him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ulBcFCt-E
Why would a young black woman become a Tory? I hope people on the left take the points she's making seriously. I also note that there is some evidence that US politics is starting to become less racialised in voting patterns.
The group doing the appointing being the surviving members of KCC, from a shortlist of three nominated by Republican precinct committee officers of the council district.
One who made the shortlist - indeed topped it - was the chief aide of the late councilmember, who was also a state senator and committee chair. Who was notorious for her outbursts, which led several times to official investigation & censure due to staff complaints.
Yours truly was asked on several occasions, by legislative staffers (Dems) if I could use my clout (non-existent) to persuade Dem councilmembers to vote for the aide/senator to fill the KCC appointment.
"Hell no" being the short answer. For as I explained, the members of the county council (of both parties) they don't want her, for the same reason that you guys (ditto) want to get rid of her.
I have spoken to them at length about this issue. Most do not have surgery or hormones - not least because of the delays in getting medical treatment and because their medical consequences are not always very nice.
They understand womens' concerns and do not seek to insert themselves in womens' spaces. And do not do so. What they find baffling is the sort of transpeople who claim to be women but who show no empathy for womens' concerns. They worry that some of these people are not genuinely trans at all but those with the sort of fetishes (autogynephilia, for instance) which seek to humiliate women.
I absolutely take the point that trans people must be protected from violence against them. That is why I think that provision should be made for unisex loos, changing rooms and other intimate spaces where they are free from risk without impinging on womens' needs. That is a practical and sensible solution. That coupled with many more resources into the sort of medical care those with gender dysphoria need. But this practical solution is not the one advanced by TRAs. They are obsessed with taking away womens rights and spaces. This only benefits sexists and male predators.
New Thread
Clearly a CUP mega-clusterfucq. Couldn't happen to nicer bunch of girls, boys & Bullingtonians (actual & wannabe).
And you pretend to speak for all women. Read what you wrote. That too is ridiculous.
Trans people are not making it impossible or difficult for women to live their lives freely or without fear of a lack of dignity. If that is your position and view, then I am sorry - but again, you do not speak for all women.
What you want is unpoliceable and will cause hurt when you get it wrong. Because however much you might think you can tell when a man is pretending to be a woman, you *will* get it wrong.
Just think of the hurt you will cause. But I doubt you care.
Women are hard wired to tell who is a woman and who is a man. It is not magic. It is essential. Our lives depend on it. Men's don't. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
But since this thread is over and we have different positions there is little point continuing. There are other matters to discuss.
There is a perfectly nice chap who lives on the street locally, who is nearly permanently drunk and shouts at pigeons. As far as I am aware he hasn’t tried to destroy education locally or nationally.
"has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,"
(I believe it is one year in Scotland.) How is using a male toilet living in their acquired gender? (for male to female)
But it's worse than that. Say they're living their lives in their acquired gender, i.e. a woman. And they go into male toilets. Do you think a man dressed as a woman will face no potential violence or issues going into a male toilet?
I daresay you will not agree with it, but read this:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/05/05/scared-of-trans-people-in-loos-were-the-ones-who-should-be-afraid-16584590/
I am very anti-rape and anti-abuse - not that I should really have to say that. But your pernicious campaign to stop trans people from using female loos will end up causing more harm for people, not less. It is an easy bandwagon for those who wish to pretend they care to jump on, without tackling the massive pile of other issues.
And again, you say 'we' as if you speak for all women. You do not.
"Women are hard wired to tell who is a woman and who is a man. It is not magic."
Do you really believe that? from a glance at someone entering a toilet? If so, you have not had a great deal of experience of transvestites in particular. And again: what when you get it wrong? What happens when you tell a woman who has lost her hair and had a mastectomy because of cancer that she need to go to the male loo because she does not look 'male'? Or a lesbian who likes looking butch? Or just some woman who looks androgynous?
Women using loos need to be free from such policing as well.
Rapists are rapists. Not all men are rapists - in fact, few are. In the same way, not all trans people are rapists.