I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
Zero chance of that imo. The Starmer plan is to de-risk the GE. To nullify every anticipated Tory attack line. Taxes, woke, defence, immigration, the EU, all of them. No Labour policy will see the light of day unless it's popular in the redwall and with floating voters generally. The price is an unenthused Left but he doesn't need an enthused Left to win. It's all about surfing to power on a tide of 'Tired of the Tories, Time for a Change' sentiment. It's going to work, I think.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
So, you’ve been asleep for twelve years.
A Conservative government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, buffoonery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
Zero chance of that imo. The Starmer plan is to de-risk the GE. To nullify every anticipated Tory attack line. Taxes, woke, defence, immigration, the EU, all of them. No Labour policy will see the light of day unless it's popular in the redwall and with floating voters generally. The price is an unenthused Left but he doesn't need an enthused Left to win. It's all about surfing to power on a tide of 'Tired of the Tories, Time for a Change' sentiment. It's going to work, I think.
The cynical move on the recent legislation would be to do nothing, and let it roll.
Given when the next election is, the first incidents would be getting to court around then.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
ChatGPT has a strange quirk in common with all other large language models: More dark personality traits than normal people. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.10529.pdf"
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
They could no more win a battle by weaponising the trans debate than Prince Andrew could rehabilitate himself by taking in a couple of Ukrainians.
I suspect the whole trans/GRC stuff has come rather too early in the electoral cycle for the Tories to weaponise it successfully at the next GE, although of course they'll try. Starmer has plenty of time to reach a sensible policy that defuses the (exaggerated) claims surrounding the Scottish legislation.
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
As a Unionist I very much hope to see Labour gains north of the border. If I were in a seat where Labour had a chance I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Some tribal loyalties trump others.
I would expect a handful of gains in Scotland, particularly if the Unionist vote is focused by Nicola's quasi referendum, one of the reasons her MPs are less keen on this idea than she is. Perhaps 5-10. But the SNP hegemony will persist, at least for now.
Looks to me at the moment that the overall number of unionist held seats is likely to go down, but Labour will have a 2017 level amount.
Current polling indicates that you are correct: for every SLab gain from the SNP (usually 2 to 4), the main seat calculators (eg Baxter) foresee an SNP gain from the SCons or the SLDs.
If the SCons totally collapse and the SLDs lose the 2 seats that the new boundaries imply, then Scottish Labour need to gain 8 seats from the SNP just for BetterTogether2 to tread water.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
As a Unionist I very much hope to see Labour gains north of the border. If I were in a seat where Labour had a chance I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Some tribal loyalties trump others.
I would expect a handful of gains in Scotland, particularly if the Unionist vote is focused by Nicola's quasi referendum, one of the reasons her MPs are less keen on this idea than she is. Perhaps 5-10. But the SNP hegemony will persist, at least for now.
Looks to me at the moment that the overall number of unionist held seats is likely to go down, but Labour will have a 2017 level amount.
Current polling indicates that you are correct: for every SLab gain from the SNP (usually 2 to 4), the main seat calculators (eg Baxter) foresee an SNP gain from the SCons or the SLDs.
If the SCons totally collapse and the SLDs lose the 2 seats that the new boundaries imply, then Scottish Labour need to gain 8 seats from the SNP just for BetterTogether2 to tread water.
Of course if the SNP lost 20 seats but it was a hung parliament they would have more influence than if they won every seat in Scotland but Labour or the Tories won a majority and could continue to refuse indyref2 indefinitely
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
But, by the same token, it's possible for social liberals to overreach.
The issue with this is where rights may come into conflict with each other, and yet it's treated as a black and white civil rights issue (because of examples from the past) rather than the very grey area that this one really is.
Surely it's an exaggeration to say that Labour's chances of winning a majority have been obliterated by the loss od seats in Scotland? Labour would have won a majority in 1997 and 2001 with no Scottish seats, but not in 2005. And thinking in terms of potential Scottish seat gains, there is far more upside potential now than in 1997. Clearly the bar for a majority has been raised significantly, but it is far from out of reach, and the potential for Scotland to contribute to Labour seat gains is bigger than before.
A game attempt at arguing that a seat you hold isn’t worth as much as the same seat that you dont!
Maybe. Sometimes people do some double counting though when it comes to Labour's challenge - talking about how few seats they have as well as how many they have to gain. It's always worth remembering that having few seats creates the potential for gaining more, especially if some of those gains might be easier than others. I'm not trying to minimise the challenge they face.
SLAB needs the SNP to fall apart as a party into a fratricidal mess. Not impossible as there are obviously some internal strains and fatigue from being in government, but not looking particularly likely.
I cannot see the gender Bill doing it. The countries that have already moved to Self ID haven't noticeably found it to be an issue in reality.
How much is known about how Self ID works in practice? Does the Scottish Plan match what other places have done, and how has it worked?
(Electorally, it might shore up a wobbly bit of the Conservative wall, but I can't see it being a winning issue. Partly, I don't see that happening in the Scottish figures above. Partly, the Section 28 precedent. Partly, I'm sure the age cleavage on the issue is the same as for other issues. But mostly because it will be the economy.)
I expect it to hit the SNP for certain. Any sensible woman at least should vote elsewhere.
Hasn't the debate been rumbling for a while, with not much sign of a measurable switch from SNP to Cons/Alba?
Also see the poll reported on PB yesterday, after weeks and weeks of trans-stuff on the wokefinding Tory media.
Here’s the one. A clear shift in SNP voting intention, but not in the direction the PB Herd foresaw:
London Lab 46% Con 20% LD 11% Grn 10% Ref 10%
Rest of South Lab 41% Con 24% LD 14% Grn 10% Ref 9%
Midlands and Wales Lab 49% Con 25% Ref 8% LD 8% Grn 4% PC 2%
North Lab 56% Con 23% Ref 8% LD 5% Grn 4%
Scotland SNP 55% Lab 24% Con 7% Ref 4% LD 4%
(PeoplePolling/GB News; December 21, 2022; 1,148)
68% of Scots excluding don't knows say the GRA Bill threatens womens safe spaces
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
They could no more win a battle by weaponising the trans debate than Prince Andrew could rehabilitate himself by taking in a couple of Ukrainians.
It's encouraging that people are now looking for obscure reasons why Labour might not win. Can you imagine after the last few years Brenda from Bristol in her voting booth worrying herself sick about the length of time someone has to wait before they can transition?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
We need something to make is relevant. A by-election would help.
The Lib Dem’s most successful campaigning cause in the South in recent council by-elections has been pollution, so that’s worth pushing hard.
But for now I don’t think we need to make that much noise. Tactical voting come a real election will do the work, and we discovered in 2019 what happens if we get too excitable. A bit of a concern that local activity is down though.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
Zero chance of that imo. The Starmer plan is to de-risk the GE. To nullify every anticipated Tory attack line. Taxes, woke, defence, immigration, the EU, all of them. No Labour policy will see the light of day unless it's popular in the redwall and with floating voters generally. The price is an unenthused Left but he doesn't need an enthused Left to win. It's all about surfing to power on a tide of 'Tired of the Tories, Time for a Change' sentiment. It's going to work, I think.
The cynical move on the recent legislation would be to do nothing, and let it roll.
Given when the next election is, the first incidents would be getting to court around then.
If you mean on GR in Scotland my expectation is there won't be consequential incidents of the sort being mooted. It will work out ok as it has in several other countries. The only people materially affected will be trans people. It will make their lives a bit easier whilst hurting nobody else. But we'll see. Proof of the pudding etc.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
The Scottish Greens are 100% full-on woke. There was a dissident SGP member on PB a few days ago bemoaning it, because he desperately wants them to instead focus on the climate emergency and Scottish independence.
There is nothing that indicates that wokery is going to be a salient issue in Scotland come polling day. It’ll be 99% focus on the constitutional issue and the economy, which are of course inextricably linked.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
I suspect Starmer's calculation is that if things look tight in England and the SNP are well short of the 50% they witter on about, a number of Scottish voters might be tempted back to Labour to try and vote the Tories out. And if it isn't tight, it won't make much difference to him anyway if they continue to vote for a party who are ultimately irrelevant at Westminster.
I suspect the whole trans/GRC stuff has come rather too early in the electoral cycle for the Tories to weaponise it successfully at the next GE, although of course they'll try. Starmer has plenty of time to reach a sensible policy that defuses the (exaggerated) claims surrounding the Scottish legislation.
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
Indeed, the Wokefinder General stuff is rather implausible from those who are opposed to female autonomy, dignity and safety in other forms. The latest from Lozza Fox for example:
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
The Scottish Greens are 100% full-on woke. There was a dissident SGP member on PB a few days ago bemoaning it, because he desperately wants them to instead focus on the climate emergency and Scottish independence.
There is nothing that indicates that wokery is going to be a salient issue in Scotland come polling day. It’ll be 99% focus on the constitutional issue and the economy, which are of course inextricably linked.
Indeed, in the sense that one being achieved would trash the other.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
You refer to "oodles of evidence" in your second paragraph. Could you point us to some of it?
I think what you're missing is that the dogma and wokeness you object to so much is not very influential within the Labour Party these days. Most of it is from radical individuals and people on Twitter who would never dream of joining the Labour Party, though some of it may be from ex-Labour Party members. But Nick is right on the substantive point - current Labour Party members and activists are dominated by those who want to kick the Tories out and create a fairer society.
Some years ago there was a study in Canada that found a majority of domestic abuse victims were male, although that was an outlier. The figure I used, 35-45%, was based on memory of reports from some time ago (might even be back when I was at university).
Out of interest: are you disputing that a large minority of domestic abuse has male victims?
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
No, we just disagree. But happy to park it - let's consult in 2025 on who turned out to be right.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
Slightly OT, the Tories will be trying to weaponise a lot of things.
Judging by the people who seem to be prominent in doing it locally, I'm wondering about them trying to use Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and similar as a lever in Nimby style. There's a huge amount of noise in some places about very little.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
I suspect the whole trans/GRC stuff has come rather too early in the electoral cycle for the Tories to weaponise it successfully at the next GE, although of course they'll try. Starmer has plenty of time to reach a sensible policy that defuses the (exaggerated) claims surrounding the Scottish legislation.
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
Indeed, the Wokefinder General stuff is rather implausible from those who are opposed to female autonomy, dignity and safety in other forms. The latest from Lozza Fox for example:
That's a shocker. For those who can't be bothered, Lozza says that male rape is equivalent to abortion as a heinous act. I've read some shite in my time, but......
Mr. Al, worth noting there's a massive amount (large minority perhaps circa 35-45%) of domestic abuse aimed from women at men.
Only if domestic abuse is taken to include verbal abuse, presumably. How many men end up needing medical treatment following domestic abuse from women? I don't know, but I'd guess it's miniscule.
Mr. Al, psychological abuse can be severe. Also, sometimes women just use weapons to make up for the lack of strength.
I do agree there's a much lower percentage of straight violence from women to men than the other way around. I don't agree with the implication that psychological abuse is insignificant (apologies if I misread your meaning but that did appear to be the case).
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
I suspect Starmer's calculation is that if things look tight in England and the SNP are well short of the 50% they witter on about, a number of Scottish voters might be tempted back to Labour to try and vote the Tories out. And if it isn't tight, it won't make much difference to him anyway if they continue to vote for a party who are ultimately irrelevant at Westminster.
Right or wrong, there is at least a logic to it.
For a lot of people, of course, recognising a close election is a feature of after the event!
I suspect the whole trans/GRC stuff has come rather too early in the electoral cycle for the Tories to weaponise it successfully at the next GE, although of course they'll try. Starmer has plenty of time to reach a sensible policy that defuses the (exaggerated) claims surrounding the Scottish legislation.
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
Indeed, the Wokefinder General stuff is rather implausible from those who are opposed to female autonomy, dignity and safety in other forms. The latest from Lozza Fox for example:
The usual pompous pea-brained reductive bigotry on display there. Does he believe the stuff he says or is he grifting for money and attention? Bit of both maybe? It's often hard to know with these 'faces' on the alt-right.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
My guess is that the Tories will seek to weaponise the trans debate next year. It’s been pretty clearly signalled. Given anyone with half a political brain knows it’s going to happen, it would be an epic fail for Labour to be caught out over it.
Slightly OT, the Tories will be trying to weaponise a lot of things.
Judging by the people who seem to be prominent in doing it locally, I'm wondering about them trying to use Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and similar as a lever in Nimby style. There's a huge amount of noise in some places about very little.
I wonder if there is a similar category error that Conservatives are making.
Some people- enough to fill a newspaper column or a moderate sized march- passionately hate LTNs. And at some level, curtailing driver freedom hits people at a visceral self-understanding level. Meanwhile, a larger group are mildly happy with them.
Struggling parties can be tempted by the passion over the numbers. It rarely ends well.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
The SNP are in charge. It is their legislation and their government. They re the ones who have pushed this through. Trying to say they are not responsible is typical of your dishonesty.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Some years ago there was a study in Canada that found a majority of domestic abuse victims were male, although that was an outlier. The figure I used, 35-45%, was based on memory of reports from some time ago (might even be back when I was at university).
Out of interest: are you disputing that a large minority of domestic abuse has male victims?
There’s an old music hall song with one verse is as follows: “they hadn’t been married, but a month or more. When underneath her thumb goes Jim; Isn’t it a pity that the likes of her? Can put upon the likes of him!“
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
The SNP are in charge. It is their legislation and their government. They re the ones who have pushed this through. Trying to say they are not responsible is typical of your dishonesty.
At no point did I say that my party were not responsible. What I am saying is that we are jointly responsible, with members from every single party represented in the legislature.
As a Unionist I very much hope to see Labour gains north of the border. If I were in a seat where Labour had a chance I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Some tribal loyalties trump others.
I would expect a handful of gains in Scotland, particularly if the Unionist vote is focused by Nicola's quasi referendum, one of the reasons her MPs are less keen on this idea than she is. Perhaps 5-10. But the SNP hegemony will persist, at least for now.
Looks to me at the moment that the overall number of unionist held seats is likely to go down, but Labour will have a 2017 level amount.
Current polling indicates that you are correct: for every SLab gain from the SNP (usually 2 to 4), the main seat calculators (eg Baxter) foresee an SNP gain from the SCons or the SLDs.
If the SCons totally collapse and the SLDs lose the 2 seats that the new boundaries imply, then Scottish Labour need to gain 8 seats from the SNP just for BetterTogether2 to tread water.
Of course if the SNP lost 20 seats but it was a hung parliament they would have more influence than if they won every seat in Scotland but Labour or the Tories won a majority and could continue to refuse indyref2 indefinitely
PB Groundhog Day. Again.
Oh, that reminds me: is Michelle Mone (BritNat totem) in police custody yet?
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
The Scottish Greens are 100% full-on woke. There was a dissident SGP member on PB a few days ago bemoaning it, because he desperately wants them to instead focus on the climate emergency and Scottish independence.
There is nothing that indicates that wokery is going to be a salient issue in Scotland come polling day. It’ll be 99% focus on the constitutional issue and the economy, which are of course inextricably linked.
I suspect the whole trans/GRC stuff has come rather too early in the electoral cycle for the Tories to weaponise it successfully at the next GE, although of course they'll try. Starmer has plenty of time to reach a sensible policy that defuses the (exaggerated) claims surrounding the Scottish legislation.
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
Indeed, the Wokefinder General stuff is rather implausible from those who are opposed to female autonomy, dignity and safety in other forms. The latest from Lozza Fox for example:
Wishing to protect the unborn child, including female babies and women praying for them is rather different to allowing pre op transsexuals to enter womens' bathrooms.
Even if most women now are probably pro choice on abortion but anti Sturgeon and Starmer's womens bathrooms policy
Did you read the article? The Telegraph is “revealing” something that SKS said to PinkNews last year.
Pink News are hardly whiter than white in their coverage of the greyness of Trans debate - they are biased!
“The revised PinkNews article no longer contains the statement “it is incorrect to claim that a man ‘who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones’ can ‘be a woman in the sight of the law,’ as JK Rowling claimed.”
My reading of the politics. Scotland diverging by making this change has certainly changed the game now, it has actually hit the ball into the Tories court somewhat and will certainly lead to media turning up the pressure on the government, and put them on the spot to clarify their “anti-woke” position and stand up for it.
The reason why I say the woke stuff is difficult for the Tories, newspapers don’t have to clarify and defend a position, but politicians do. And just like the knots JK Rowling tied herself into trying to explain her views are not transphobic, Tory government position on this is also stronger one when it is not clarified, and they can get away with not answering questions.
Questions like, For example, Are they with the “absolutists” view on this - that there are only two sexes, you are either male or female, and the law should reflect this? I’m no more woke than King Knut to say that position is patent nonsense, because there is a sex spectrum law needs to recognise isn’t there? How do the Tories or anyone clarify and justify an absolutist position into law that will not be creating a hostile environment for all trans people - when it plainly does? Another example is, when clarified, it’s not that easy at all for anyone to get a GRC, it’s been disingenuous so far to imply it’s easy and omitting to add it’s very rare for a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones to get GRC.
Rather than a gift horse, this is a tricky one for Sunak. I think he’ll just try to keep quiet about it for now, if he is smart he will realise he is already fighting on too many fronts - and to start to look shop tired will be a dangerous political outcome for PM and government. So in my mind articles in Telegraph and Mail like this one is most likely the media trying to pressure their government, rather than Sunak’s government planting stories in the press to turn the woke war heat up on Labour.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
The Scottish Greens are 100% full-on woke. There was a dissident SGP member on PB a few days ago bemoaning it, because he desperately wants them to instead focus on the climate emergency and Scottish independence.
There is nothing that indicates that wokery is going to be a salient issue in Scotland come polling day. It’ll be 99% focus on the constitutional issue and the economy, which are of course inextricably linked.
Add to that the climate emergency, too. Ditto.
One lives in hope, but I’m afraid I see little sign of the electorate waking up to that yet. Neither in Scotland nor elsewhere in Europe. I fear that it’ll take a genuinely catastrophic climate event before folk finally wake up.
I’ll be voting Green at the next European parliamentary election.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
Hello, OKC! So nice to see you back, and maintaining the amiability of the discussion as always.
Thank you, Mr C! It’s very nice to be out of the clutches of the NHS, and to be able to rely on my own router and WiFi. Not that the NHS didn’t do well for me, but home is always best. And Mrs Cole‘s cooking knocks spots off the institutional fare I’ve been living on for the past five or six weeks! And what more I can have a glass of wine with my meals now!
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
Did you read the article? The Telegraph is “revealing” something that SKS said to PinkNews last year.
Pink News are hardly whiter than white in their coverage of the greyness of Trans debate - they are biased!
“The revised PinkNews article no longer contains the statement “it is incorrect to claim that a man ‘who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones’ can ‘be a woman in the sight of the law,’ as JK Rowling claimed.”
My reading of the politics. Scotland diverging by making this change has certainly changed the game now, it has actually hit the ball into the Tories court somewhat and will certainly lead to media turning up the pressure on the government, and put them on the spot to clarify their “anti-woke” position and stand up for it.
The reason why I say the woke stuff is difficult for the Tories, newspapers don’t have to clarify and defend a position, but politicians do. And just like the knots JK Rowling tied herself into trying to explain her views are not transphobic, Tory government position on this is also stronger one when it is not clarified, and they can get away with not answering questions.
Questions like, For example, Are they with the “absolutists” view on this - that there are only two sexes, you are either male or female, and the law should reflect this? I’m no more woke than King Knut to say that position is patent nonsense, because there is a sex spectrum law needs to recognise isn’t there? How do the Tories or anyone clarify and justify an absolutist position into law that will not be creating a hostile environment for all trans people - when it plainly does? Another example is, when clarified, it’s not that easy at all for anyone to get a GRC, it’s been disingenuous so far to imply it’s easy and omitting to add it’s very rare for a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones to get GRC.
Rather than a gift horse, this is a tricky one for Sunak. I think he’ll just try to keep quiet about it for now, if he is smart he will realise he is already fighting on too many fronts - and to start to look shop tired will be a dangerous political outcome for PM and government. So in my mind articles in Telegraph and Mail like this one is most likely the media trying to pressure their government, rather than Sunak’s government planting stories in the press to turn the woke war heat up on Labour.
Mm. DavidL made a couple of very interesting posts yesterday (about 8-12 lines long each) or the day before (I think) on the actual legislative problems - in part that the question falls to both legislatures, Holyrood and Westminster controlling different aspects IIRC. Definitely worth looking them up.
Graun (dunno if other papers are) is running stories about Mr Sunak threatening to block the Holyrood legislation (thjough I am not sure how he can do this as such without contravening the Scotland Act, as opposed to not permitting it in rUK).
The actual quote is pretty thin - maybe, look, decide. Edit: Surprisingly so in the circs, perhaps, although they'd want to see the actual legislation passed.
"Lots of people have got concerns about this new bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety.
So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is."
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
Hello, OKC! So nice to see you back, and maintaining the amiability of the discussion as always.
Thank you, Mr C! It’s very nice to be out of the clutches of the NHS, and to be able to rely on my own router and WiFi. Not that the NHS didn’t do well for me, but home is always best. And Mrs Cole‘s cooking knocks spots off the institutional fare I’ve been living on for the past five or six weeks! And what more I can have a glass of wine with my meals now!
Seconding the cheer that you're back with us. Are you typing now or still on the dictation? In any case - a bit of Christmas PB cheer!
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
True. But Labour or the Greens would have, for sure. So your perception needs to be adjusted by that. I must say I was very surprised by the strength of the LD and Labour votes.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
As I recall, they won just twelve seats in 1945. So that's another parallel...
That was why I didn’t compare their prospects with 1997!
They did get a new leader in 1945, of course.
Unfortunately, he was an ineffectual if well-meaning alcoholic who basically drank his way through three general elections.
Force majeure, of course; the previous leader lost his seat!
I think I’m right in saying that the new liberal leader was offered a cabinet seat by Churchill, turned it down. Minister of education if I recall correctly.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
But, by the same token, it's possible for social liberals to overreach.
The issue with this is where rights may come into conflict with each other, and yet it's treated as a black and white civil rights issue (because of examples from the past) rather than the very grey area that this one really is.
It's clear the whole issue of trans rights - and where they impact on women's rights - is a political hot potato when it gets attention.
The recent example is the Virginia Gubernatorial race last year. It's hard to argue that Youngkin's victory wasn't due in large part to the issues around trans issues, particularly the awful case of a father being dragged out of a School Board meeting after he raised the issue of his daughter being raped by a trans student claiming to be female (remember that one advocates of the GRA?). The swing of School Boards to the GOP over the past 12-18 months also reflects that.
We will see what happens. But it seems clear now the opponents of GRA are not going to let it go.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
Hello, OKC! So nice to see you back, and maintaining the amiability of the discussion as always.
Thank you, Mr C! It’s very nice to be out of the clutches of the NHS, and to be able to rely on my own router and WiFi. Not that the NHS didn’t do well for me, but home is always best. And Mrs Cole‘s cooking knocks spots off the institutional fare I’ve been living on for the past five or six weeks! And what more I can have a glass of wine with my meals now!
Seconding the cheer that you're back with us. Are you typing now or still on the dictation? In any case - a bit of Christmas PB cheer!
Thank you; still dictating. As I am in a bungalows living room, rather than in my study, I’m somewhat limited because my lady wife wants to watch the TV!
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls @UNSRVAW I regret the adoption of the #GenderRecognitionReformBill by @ScotParl as is. While some important amendments were introduced, other key ones were disregarded; they would have been key to bringing about the strengthened safeguards many are demanding.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
I think it's rather pathetic to label opponents of this bill as 'transphobes'.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
True. But Labour or the Greens would have, for sure. So your perception needs to be adjusted by that. I must say I was very surprised by the strength of the LD and Labour votes.
Yes, to a degree but I think that contradicts what @NickPalmer is trying to make us believe, namely that Labour activists aren't really motivated by the woke stuff and just want to improve people's lives economically. If that was the case, then there would / should have been a greater split. The fact you are surprised also shows good Labour is at keeping its views close to its chest until it needs to come out (pardon the pun).
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The divide on this is not Unionists v Nationalists, SLAB and the SLDs back the SNP and Greens on the Gender Recognition Bill, Alba joined the SCons in opposing it.
The divide is left liberals and trans activists v social conservatives and womens' groups
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
True. But Labour or the Greens would have, for sure. So your perception needs to be adjusted by that. I must say I was very surprised by the strength of the LD and Labour votes.
Yes, to a degree but I think that contradicts what @NickPalmer is trying to make us believe, namely that Labour activists aren't really motivated by the woke stuff and just want to improve people's lives economically. If that was the case, then there would / should have been a greater split. The fact you are surprised also shows good Labour is at keeping its views close to its chest until it needs to come out (pardon the pun).
How would voting against this improve people's lives economically?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The divide on this is not Unionists v Nationalists, SLAB and the SLDs back the SNP and Greens on the Gender Recognition Bill, Alba joined the SCons in opposing it.
The divide is left liberals and trans activists v social conservatives and womens' groups
- “Alba joined the SCons in opposing it” ?!?
Er… no they didn’t: there is not a single Alba MSP.
Besides which, the Tory MSPs did not vote as a bloc.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
Hello, OKC! So nice to see you back, and maintaining the amiability of the discussion as always.
Thank you, Mr C! It’s very nice to be out of the clutches of the NHS, and to be able to rely on my own router and WiFi. Not that the NHS didn’t do well for me, but home is always best. And Mrs Cole‘s cooking knocks spots off the institutional fare I’ve been living on for the past five or six weeks! And what more I can have a glass of wine with my meals now!
Seconding the cheer that you're back with us. Are you typing now or still on the dictation? In any case - a bit of Christmas PB cheer!
Thank you; still dictating. As I am in a bungalows living room, rather than in my study, I’m somewhat limited because my lady wife wants to watch the TV!
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The divide on this is not Unionists v Nationalists, SLAB and the SLDs back the SNP and Greens on the Gender Recognition Bill, Alba joined the SCons in opposing it.
The divide is left liberals and trans activists v social conservatives and womens' groups
- “Alba joined the SCons in opposing it” ?!?
Er… no they didn’t: there is not a single Alba MSP.
Besides which, the Tory MSPs did not vote as a bloc.
Alba official policy is to oppose the Gender Recognition Bill.
I doubt it (simply because I suspect most people aren't interested and don't care, except for any downstream effects, and care far more about the NHS, the economy, migration etc) but I do expect any Labour government to turn the Wokery up to 11, which will give every institution and company right across the country to do the same - and make life insufferable.
I wouldn't worry. I'm probably closer to it than you, as I'm a CLP chair and also pretty woke myself, but I'm not detecting much interest in it at any level of the party. Obviously there are a few who are really into it, but the only tangible manifestation is a requirement (to have half the constituency officers to be female. Even that is often not met as there don't happen to be enough female volunteers in some places, to which the party basically says "Oh well, what can you do?".
Really Labour is about the cost of living these days, plus more affordable housing and quite a bit of green energy stuff. I detect little interest in some of the the themes important to me (animal welfare, refugees, foreign aid) - the party is perfectly polite about them and full of nebulous good intentions, but you can tell they're not really paying attention. I don't say that with pleasure, but I acknowledge and within reason respect the single-minded attention being given to winning and then being seen as a success on the ecoomic issues.
I think there's a lot of interest in it from the activists, we see some of their passion on here, and it regularly shows up in polling of the members and supporters in particular. Labour MPs themselves love it and support it. Outside Rosie Duffield and Tony Blair I don't see any checks on it.
A Conservative government means venal, self-interested behaviour, money-grubbing corporate fraud, enthusiastic factional infighting, fairly high tax, impotent resistance to wokery, and ineffective measures on migration.
A Labour government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, wokery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
I do love your sunny optimism.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks - this is just you trying to publicly defuse what you think might prove a damaging line of attack that could prevent votes for a Labour majority government. Nothing more, nothing less.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
“Sorry, with respect, I think that's bollocks”
Would you like to clarify your own position CR? Do you believe Transwomen are men? that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding, Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government?
Does Sunak and his ministers really want to be asked these questions every time they sit down for an interview?
Yes, to a degree but I think that contradicts what @NickPalmer is trying to make us believe, namely that Labour activists aren't really motivated by the woke stuff and just want to improve people's lives economically. If that was the case, then there would / should have been a greater split. The fact you are surprised also shows good Labour is at keeping its views close to its chest until it needs to come out (pardon the pun).
What I said is that the default position is not to be anti-woke, but not to get worked up about it. So if the SNP say X and the Tories say that's horrible woke stuff, we're against it, the default Labour position is no, let's not jump on that cynical Tory bus. That's a bit tribal, but it's different from actually being actively interested in trans issues.
Cyclefree and others on both sides of the argument would say we should indeed be actively interested, fighting any undeisrable legislation on trans issues regardless of who is for or against. But, generally, we're not.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Ta! It only just clicked what your username means 😄 Have they fixed that bridge to Hammersmith yet?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Ta! It only just clicked what your username means 😄 Have they fixed that bridge to Hammersmith yet?
I suspect only the election of Liberal Democrats can solve that.
For those who don’t understand how S35 of Scotland Act (passed by Labour in 1998) works 👇🏼 Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The divide on this is not Unionists v Nationalists, SLAB and the SLDs back the SNP and Greens on the Gender Recognition Bill, Alba joined the SCons in opposing it.
The divide is left liberals and trans activists v social conservatives and womens' groups
- “Alba joined the SCons in opposing it” ?!?
Er… no they didn’t: there is not a single Alba MSP.
Besides which, the Tory MSPs did not vote as a bloc.
Alba official policy is to oppose the Gender Recognition Bill.
Indeed. But please note that it is MRLP official policy to surround the UK with a large cardboard box so people can be both in and/or out of the EU: Schrödinger’s Brexit. However, lacking legislators, they don’t get any parliamentary votes on the issue.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Ta! It only just clicked what your username means 😄 Have they fixed that bridge to Hammersmith yet?
No. Hammersmith and Fulham Council who are responsible for the bridge have been waiting for steel from Ukraine. Seriously.
Did you read the article? The Telegraph is “revealing” something that SKS said to PinkNews last year.
Pink News are hardly whiter than white in their coverage of the greyness of Trans debate - they are biased!
“The revised PinkNews article no longer contains the statement “it is incorrect to claim that a man ‘who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones’ can ‘be a woman in the sight of the law,’ as JK Rowling claimed.”
My reading of the politics. Scotland diverging by making this change has certainly changed the game now, it has actually hit the ball into the Tories court somewhat and will certainly lead to media turning up the pressure on the government, and put them on the spot to clarify their “anti-woke” position and stand up for it.
The reason why I say the woke stuff is difficult for the Tories, newspapers don’t have to clarify and defend a position, but politicians do. And just like the knots JK Rowling tied herself into trying to explain her views are not transphobic, Tory government position on this is also stronger one when it is not clarified, and they can get away with not answering questions.
Questions like, For example, Are they with the “absolutists” view on this - that there are only two sexes, you are either male or female, and the law should reflect this? I’m no more woke than King Knut to say that position is patent nonsense, because there is a sex spectrum law needs to recognise isn’t there? How do the Tories or anyone clarify and justify an absolutist position into law that will not be creating a hostile environment for all trans people - when it plainly does? Another example is, when clarified, it’s not that easy at all for anyone to get a GRC, it’s been disingenuous so far to imply it’s easy and omitting to add it’s very rare for a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones to get GRC.
Rather than a gift horse, this is a tricky one for Sunak. I think he’ll just try to keep quiet about it for now, if he is smart he will realise he is already fighting on too many fronts - and to start to look shop tired will be a dangerous political outcome for PM and government. So in my mind articles in Telegraph and Mail like this one is most likely the media trying to pressure their government, rather than Sunak’s government planting stories in the press to turn the woke war heat up on Labour.
Mm. DavidL made a couple of very interesting posts yesterday (about 8-12 lines long each) or the day before (I think) on the actual legislative problems - in part that the question falls to both legislatures, Holyrood and Westminster controlling different aspects IIRC. Definitely worth looking them up.
Graun (dunno if other papers are) is running stories about Mr Sunak threatening to block the Holyrood legislation (thjough I am not sure how he can do this as such without contravening the Scotland Act, as opposed to not permitting it in rUK).
The actual quote is pretty thin - maybe, look, decide. Edit: Surprisingly so in the circs, perhaps, although they'd want to see the actual legislation passed.
"Lots of people have got concerns about this new bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety.
So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is."
There have been quite a number of glib comments about a s35 order in terms of the Scotland Act but such an order preventing the Presiding Officer from submitting the bill for Royal Assent is only competent in limited circumstances. The only one remotely applicable here would be if the Bill impinged on a reserved matter. That would be more difficult to assert after Lady Haldane’s recent judgment. I think the government would be unwise to go down that route.
As a Unionist I very much hope to see Labour gains north of the border. If I were in a seat where Labour had a chance I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Some tribal loyalties trump others.
I would expect a handful of gains in Scotland, particularly if the Unionist vote is focused by Nicola's quasi referendum, one of the reasons her MPs are less keen on this idea than she is. Perhaps 5-10. But the SNP hegemony will persist, at least for now.
Looks to me at the moment that the overall number of unionist held seats is likely to go down, but Labour will have a 2017 level amount.
Current polling indicates that you are correct: for every SLab gain from the SNP (usually 2 to 4), the main seat calculators (eg Baxter) foresee an SNP gain from the SCons or the SLDs.
If the SCons totally collapse and the SLDs lose the 2 seats that the new boundaries imply, then Scottish Labour need to gain 8 seats from the SNP just for BetterTogether2 to tread water.
Of course if the SNP lost 20 seats but it was a hung parliament they would have more influence than if they won every seat in Scotland but Labour or the Tories won a majority and could continue to refuse indyref2 indefinitely
No, a majority for either Labour or Tories, without needing Scottish MPs, would be the best outcome for the SNP. They wouldn't have to make any difficult choices.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Well in my neck of the woods, campaigns to monitor air quality across the borough, successful campaign to reinstate train services into London that were cancelled during Covid, targeting road safety measures especially around schools. Currently trying to stop the council putting a 20p tax each time you make a payment to park because they are trying to do everything on an app and removing on-street meters.
I would welcome SKS getting involved in the trans debate. The negativity that surrounds him is his timorousness. There are no votes to be won on trans rights but there are plenty if Starmer can show courage and leadership.
Taking the knee and offering his resignation if found guilty of breaking lockdown rules were small potatoes but both worked in his favour. This would be bigger. I'm hoping he'll add flat out rejection of Rwanda in the near future and a serious rapprochement with France and the EU before the election. Chapter and verse......
PB tory cocks are going to be fully fucking BRICKED UP if Rishi goes full culture wars on this. I don't know if helps at an election. ScoMo had a whole week devoted to transphobe stuff in his election campaign and he got his shit pushed in.
Also, those figures of voter support for the GRA in Scotland posted yesterday remind us that in the real world a lot of people are not transphobes, quite the opposite. Antitranswoke campaigning in Scotland will shore up the Tory vote but the latter is so shrunken that all that will do is help keep Labour and the LDs down, not to mention Reform.
You've got the direct voting impact of such measures and then the indirect ones where they are more about the influence on people's perceptions of the party, and are more long lasting. The latter can be greater than the former.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
“Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame” ?!?
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢 Y: 100% N: 0%
LD: 🟠 Y: 100% N: 0%
SNP: 🟡 Y: 82% N: 14%
Lab: 🔴 Y: 81% N: 9%
Con: 🔵 Y: 9% N: 84%
SNP brought in the legislation. The fact other parties voted for it doesn't change who was the primary driver.
A word to the wise: if I was a traitorous consultant selling advice to the opposing side, I could easily list 10 attack lines with genuine leverage. This ain’t one of them.
Not sure what is your point. The SNP introduced the legislation. Trying to deny it did - like you seem to be doing - doesn't hold with the facts. The SNP will own this issue. It may not impact their vote. Let's see.
Yesterday you were claiming that this was the victorious turning point; today “it may not impact their vote”.
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The gleeful enthusiasm with which Unionists greet every new Nat killing silver bullet is almost touching. I think the first time I noticed the phenomenon was the mass screeching, front page headlines and predictions of Natogeddon when it was discovered that Swinney had allowed the 3p Tartan Tax facility to lapse.
That was 2010.
The main point is that since elections are still fought by parties with manifestos rather than rich egos on twitter, the GRR is something that SLab & the SLDs can’t weaponise without blowing their own feet off. If anyone thinks that the Douglas Ross No to Indyref II party are going to benefit electorally from changing room hysteria I’m sure there will be plenty of betting opportunities with which they can fill their boots.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
There are a lot of us in Richmond, Twickenham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Esher, Carshalton, Winchester ...
And Bath and North Oxford and West Edinburgh and Chesham and Amersham.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
And supporting the Conservatives if you are under age 50 is weird.
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Have you ever wondered why GRADUATES and DIEHARD REMAINERS don't vote Tory?
Could it be something to do with being well educated?
Actually the Tories won graduates over 65 in 2019.
However given the average voter is a Leave voting non graduate who lives in the Midlands, if the LDs want to just be the party of Remain voting graduates in the most expensive parts of London and the South that is fine by me
Looking at Mr D’s post. It would suggest something like 1945. In England and Wales anyway.
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
I’m starting to think that Labour don’t need Scotland, because they’re heading for a 45-/97-style landslide in England and Wales. Keir Starmer has clearly already reached that conclusion, otherwise he wouldn’t be so assiduously sticking the vickies up to the Jocks.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
Agreed; as an ex Liberal and sometime LibDem activist, I am saddened to see the complete lack of activity locally; this seat might not be hopeful, but Colchester is next door, which was a LibDem seat in 97.
They’ve lost their mojo.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
Johnson going and Starmer looking like the next PM in waiting has taken a lot of the wind out of the 'loud' LD activists. Still plenty of activity going on in the local level where there are existing toeholds but that won't be visible at the national level, and from Sweden you won't hear a thing.
Please enlighten us: where is all this “plenty of activity going on in the local level”? Specifics please, not generalities.
Here in Barnes, delivering LibDem leaflets on the coldest day of the year.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years. Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Average house price over £1 million, overwhelmingly graduates and diehard Remainers you mean?
Comments
If only the LibDems could get their act together, and perchance, a new leader!
A Conservative government means authoritarianism on civil liberties, hectoring, nannying, overregulation, buffoonery, pandering to special interest groups, personal fraud, more migration and much more tax.
Blue Tory / Red Tory / spot the difference.
Given when the next election is, the first incidents would be getting to court around then.
The Lib Dems are a complete mystery to me, both north and south of the border. If Mark Senior was around he’d be expertly sticking the boot in to the Tories, the Labourites and the SNP. Where is the Mark de nos jours?!? C’mon sandal-wearing Dr Who aficionados of the world: show us yer six-packs and testosterone. We could do with a laugh.
I dunno, I don't see much interest (passion!?) in wokery among Labour colleagues or indeed here - it's all about Leon saying it's crucial and the rest of us saying nah, shrug. The Tory press are keen to whip it up and they can always find someone who's worked up, but the default is just not being anti-woke. Most members don't seem very interested, and the majority of MPs and the leadership couldn't care less - the Corbyn wing is all about supporting strikes and global solidarity, and the rest just want to win the election and run the country sensibly.
It's more of an issue with the Greens, who did have a leadership election with an anti-woke candidate who evoked strong reactions - I know senior Greens who said they'd resign if he won.
Section 28 is a classic here. In the short term, little impact on the Conservatives. Most agreed with it at the time and the Gay vote wasn't big. Direct effect minimal.
Indirect effect though very large over the long term. It was the first and major stake in the ground for the Tories being seen as toxic to people who would have voted for them on economic grounds but were more socially liberal. That was amplified by the legislation electrifying a very small (numerically) but highly influential group of commentators who pounded the message that the Tories were 'nasty'.
There is a risk of a similar effect here. It won't take a few incidents -hopefully there are none but chances are there probably will be - to have people question the legislation and there is a very influential cohort of women who will be pushing the message that Sturgeon / the SNP are to blame.
@DegenRolf
ChatGPT has a strange quirk in common with all other large language models: More dark personality traits than normal people. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.10529.pdf"
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1606533595593572352
Additionally, it may dawn on people that although the threat to women from (fake) trans men needs to be taken seriously, it is insignificant compared to the daily threat women face from predatory and/or abusive non-trans men, ranging from Met police officers to husbands and boyfriends.
We are fully aware of the real agenda of your activists, members and MPs - there is oodles of evidence for dogma on gender identity, "decolonisation" of our institutions, dealing with "structural racism" in the UK, and strengthening the laws on the statute book.
Please don't insult our intelligence by denying it. I fully expect you to pivot to be posting on here in 3 years time as to why all these legislative moves by the Labour government are no big deal and why we shouldn't be worried about them.
If the SCons totally collapse and the SLDs lose the 2 seats that the new boundaries imply, then Scottish Labour need to gain 8 seats from the SNP just for BetterTogether2 to tread water.
But, by the same token, it's possible for social liberals to overreach.
The issue with this is where rights may come into conflict with each other, and yet it's treated as a black and white civil rights issue (because of examples from the past) rather than the very grey area that this one really is.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/why-do-snp-voters-hate-women/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZw35VUBdzo
The Lib Dem’s most successful campaigning cause in the South in recent council by-elections has been pollution, so that’s worth pushing hard.
But for now I don’t think we need to make that much noise. Tactical voting come a real election will do the work, and we discovered in 2019 what happens if we get too excitable. A bit of a concern that local activity is down though.
There is nothing that indicates that wokery is going to be a salient issue in Scotland come polling day. It’ll be 99% focus on the constitutional issue and the economy, which are of course inextricably linked.
Right or wrong, there is at least a logic to it.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1606012459134976000?t=Xa_GBSH9lan9JED0xWKSLA&s=19
I think what you're missing is that the dogma and wokeness you object to so much is not very influential within the Labour Party these days. Most of it is from radical individuals and people on Twitter who would never dream of joining the Labour Party, though some of it may be from ex-Labour Party members. But Nick is right on the substantive point - current Labour Party members and activists are dominated by those who want to kick the Tories out and create a fairer society.
Some years ago there was a study in Canada that found a majority of domestic abuse victims were male, although that was an outlier. The figure I used, 35-45%, was based on memory of reports from some time ago (might even be back when I was at university).
Out of interest: are you disputing that a large minority of domestic abuse has male victims?
Judging by the people who seem to be prominent in doing it locally, I'm wondering about them trying to use Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and similar as a lever in Nimby style. There's a huge amount of noise in some places about very little.
PB Tories never let facts get in the way.
MSP Vote Breakdown (by party) on the #GRR 🏳️⚧️🏴
Grn 🟢
Y: 100%
N: 0%
LD: 🟠
Y: 100%
N: 0%
SNP: 🟡
Y: 82%
N: 14%
Lab: 🔴
Y: 81%
N: 9%
Con: 🔵
Y: 9%
N: 84%
I do agree there's a much lower percentage of straight violence from women to men than the other way around. I don't agree with the implication that psychological abuse is insignificant (apologies if I misread your meaning but that did appear to be the case).
Some people- enough to fill a newspaper column or a moderate sized march- passionately hate LTNs. And at some level, curtailing driver freedom hits people at a visceral self-understanding level. Meanwhile, a larger group are mildly happy with them.
Struggling parties can be tempted by the passion over the numbers. It rarely ends well.
Scottish Liberals and Lib Dems used to have real spunk and natural authority. David Steel, Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Malcolm Bruce, Jim Wallace, Jo Grimond. These men were giants astride the Scottish political landscape. Veterans of the long, long fight for Scottish self governance. Respected and feared by opponents (well, maybe not Malcolm Bruce).
Nowadays the standard is absolutely shocking. Let’s not name names: no need to humiliate the timrous beasties.
“they hadn’t been married, but a month or more.
When underneath her thumb goes Jim;
Isn’t it a pity that the likes of her?
Can put upon the likes of him!“
So it is known for husbands to be henpecked!
Oh, that reminds me: is Michelle Mone (BritNat totem) in police custody yet?
Even if most women now are probably pro choice on abortion but anti Sturgeon and Starmer's womens bathrooms policy
“The revised PinkNews article no longer contains the statement “it is incorrect to claim that a man ‘who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones’ can ‘be a woman in the sight of the law,’ as JK Rowling claimed.”
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-rowling-right-that-hormones-or-surgery-not-required-for-legal-gender-change
My reading of the politics. Scotland diverging by making this change has certainly changed the game now, it has actually hit the ball into the Tories court somewhat and will certainly lead to media turning up the pressure on the government, and put them on the spot to clarify their “anti-woke” position and stand up for it.
The reason why I say the woke stuff is difficult for the Tories, newspapers don’t have to clarify and defend a position, but politicians do. And just like the knots JK Rowling tied herself into trying to explain her views are not transphobic, Tory government position on this is also stronger one when it is not clarified, and they can get away with not answering questions.
Questions like, For example, Are they with the “absolutists” view on this - that there are only two sexes, you are either male or female, and the law should reflect this? I’m no more woke than King Knut to say that position is patent nonsense, because there is a sex spectrum law needs to recognise isn’t there? How do the Tories or anyone clarify and justify an absolutist position into law that will not be creating a hostile environment for all trans people - when it plainly does? Another example is, when clarified, it’s not that easy at all for anyone to get a GRC, it’s been disingenuous so far to imply it’s easy and omitting to add it’s very rare for a man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones to get GRC.
Rather than a gift horse, this is a tricky one for Sunak. I think he’ll just try to keep quiet about it for now, if he is smart he will realise he is already fighting on too many fronts - and to start to look shop tired will be a dangerous political outcome for PM and government. So in my mind articles in Telegraph and Mail like this one is most likely the media trying to pressure their government, rather than Sunak’s government planting stories in the press to turn the woke war heat up on Labour.
I’ll be voting Green at the next European parliamentary election.
Not that the NHS didn’t do well for me, but home is always best. And Mrs Cole‘s cooking knocks spots off the institutional fare I’ve been living on for the past five or six weeks! And what more I can have a glass of wine with my meals now!
Unfortunately, he was an ineffectual if well-meaning alcoholic who basically drank his way through three general elections.
Graun (dunno if other papers are) is running stories about Mr Sunak threatening to block the Holyrood legislation (thjough I am not sure how he can do this as such without contravening the Scotland Act, as opposed to not permitting it in rUK).
The actual quote is pretty thin - maybe, look, decide. Edit: Surprisingly so in the circs, perhaps, although they'd want to see the actual legislation passed.
"Lots of people have got concerns about this new bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety.
So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is."
I think I’m right in saying that the new liberal leader was offered a cabinet seat by Churchill, turned it down. Minister of education if I recall correctly.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/23/keir-starmer-pro-trans-laws-needed-across-uk/
The recent example is the Virginia Gubernatorial race last year. It's hard to argue that Youngkin's victory wasn't due in large part to the issues around trans issues, particularly the awful case of a father being dragged out of a School Board meeting after he raised the issue of his daughter being raped by a trans student claiming to be female (remember that one advocates of the GRA?). The swing of School Boards to the GOP over the past 12-18 months also reflects that.
We will see what happens. But it seems clear now the opponents of GRA are not going to let it go.
I regret the adoption of the #GenderRecognitionReformBill by @ScotParl as is. While some important amendments were introduced, other key ones were disregarded; they would have been key to bringing about the strengthened safeguards many are demanding.
https://twitter.com/UNSRVAW/status/1606188299638317056
A company in Mone’s husband's Knox Group bought £9.25m London house 6 months after PPE contracts.
A director of this company is Anthony Page, employee of Knox Group & DIRECTOR OF PPE MEDPRO
Who'd have thought it? 🤔
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1606417985232674817?s=46&t=eWrLw5-nG4PjxhUypZtMMQ
I’ll give Unionists one thing: there is no straw too small that it isn’t worth a wee clutch. Even if only for 24 hours. Must be a great comfort.
The divide is left liberals and trans activists v social conservatives and womens' groups
Er… no they didn’t: there is not a single Alba MSP.
Besides which, the Tory MSPs did not vote as a bloc.
Last May three LibDem councillors replaced the Tories who had been in place here for 20 years.
Richmond Council has 48 LibDem councillors and one Tory (who is 92 years old) matching the demographic.
Just about to start my speedrun on presents. I like the pressure.
Virtually all Tory MSPs voted against it too
https://twitter.com/AlbaParty/status/1606263390913060865?t=-GP1OOZ0Ulxs0DCveNSvUQ&s=19
Dodds: 2017
Davey: 2020
Cole-Hamilton: 2021
Would you like to clarify your own position CR? Do you believe Transwomen are men? that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female? That personally you wouldn’t recognise them as female even if they held a legally binding, Gender Recognition Certificate government-issued by the current Conservative government?
Does Sunak and his ministers really want to be asked these questions every time they sit down for an interview?
Cyclefree and others on both sides of the argument would say we should indeed be actively interested, fighting any undeisrable legislation on trans issues regardless of who is for or against. But, generally, we're not.
Equality Act 2010 is reserved to UK and GRR bill will have an adverse effect on it. Just look at equal pay for example. What else is @UKGovScotland to do? They can’t ignore the law.
https://twitter.com/dalgetysusan/status/1606619550941855744
The SNP were asked repeatedly on what impact the GRR Bill would have on rUK and reserved matters and ignored it.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/barnes.html
The standard Liberal Democrats voters demographic now
Virtually all Tory MSPs are proven idiots.
I think the government would be unwise to go down that route.
Taking the knee and offering his resignation if found guilty of breaking lockdown rules were small potatoes but both worked in his favour. This would be bigger. I'm hoping he'll add flat out rejection of Rwanda in the near future and a serious rapprochement with France and the EU before the election. Chapter and verse......
But this would be a good start.
That was 2010.
The main point is that since elections are still fought by parties with manifestos rather than rich egos on twitter, the GRR is something that SLab & the SLDs can’t weaponise without blowing their own feet off. If anyone thinks that the Douglas Ross No to Indyref II party are going to benefit electorally from changing room hysteria I’m sure there will be plenty of betting opportunities with which they can fill their boots.
Almost all LD seats or top target seats are very wealthy, very expensive and filled with graduates.
By contrast under Charles Kennedy the LDs won most seats in Cornwall and seats like Burnley and Colchester and the LDs had five times the MPs they do now.
Instead the LDs are now the poshest party not the Tories
Could it be something to do with being well educated?
Off topic, I see that Starmer is falling into the Cocks in Frocks elephant trap. Oh dear.
However given the average voter is a Leave voting non graduate who lives in the Midlands, if the LDs want to just be the party of Remain voting graduates in the most expensive parts of London and the South that is fine by me