How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
I don’t see how prolonging this conflict benefits the US more than a quick Russian defeat.
I've never been clear on that myself. The most I've seen attempted is that the US would like chaos in general to continue as they find that useful.
It's surely true that the US (and others, but particularly them), could do a lot more if they really wanted, boots on the ground and all that, and they have chosen not to do those various things for all sorts of reasons, but 'not doing as much as they possibly could' does not equal 'wants to prolong for as long as possible' in my head, it seems more of a range than those binary options. Yet I'm to believe that unless they send 500 Abrams, which I imagine would be criticised, that means they basically are responsible for it carrying on as long as possible? It seems a step too far.
The Americans are just salami slicing their support. They can't do too much all at once because it causes the Russian establishment to panic and do something rash. If it's just a slow tightening of the noose there isn't a moment that induces a dirty bomb or something like that.
So US delay on tanks is cleverly avoiding a Russian dirty bomb, but German delay on tanks is cowardly treachery. Got it.
Unlike @MoonRabbit, I don't get too hostile to synthetic surface racing (or winter flat racing, just don't use the a and the w word together). Back in the day, the Equitrack at Lingfield was a licence for regular punters to top up their funds - always back course form over form at the Fibresand tracks and always back the horse drawn one over five furlongs -along with breakfast at 9am for a ten race card starting at 10.30.
You tell punters that now - they don't believe a word of it.
Chris Hipkins will succeed Jacinda Ardern as New Zealand's Prime Minister and it will be interesting to see if Ardern's departure has lanced the unpopularity boil. I cannot believe some of the hatred (there's no other word) expressed toward her on some NZ forums.
There's this huge anger out there in the Anglosphere - it seems strongest among men but I've seen it from women as well. I don't get it so I don't understand it. It's more than social or economic or even cultural - it seems an almost visceral rage against all aspects of modern life and politics. It's clear where this anger is directed but I don't get any sense of the kind of society or identity to which this anger espouses.
It's almost as though the anger is all they have - there certainly aren't any viable solutions or constructive alternatives just an endless rage. Perhaps it's all they ever had.
How do you explain the decision to block other countries sending Leo 2's? (Let alone the decision not to send German ones)?
Because German capital, at whose pleasure OS serves, doesn't want to be on the Kremlin's shit list when the SMO is over and the sanctions are inevitably lifted. There will be a great deal of pent up demand for the products of DMG Mori, etc.
They are linking it to Abrams in the firm and enduring belief that the US will never give them to Ukraine so Germany will never have to sanction the transfer of Leopards. The US does, 100%, want to prolong the conflict as long as possible, or at least until the 2024 election campaign gets into full swing, because it weakens Russia and erodes the strategic autonomy of Europe.
The 'complexity' argument regarding Abrams is specious. They delivered M1 to Iraq for fuck's sake.
I believe Poland has a shitload of Abrams on order so presumably not too complex for their muddy bit of Eastern Europe. The Poles love being noisy about this kind of thing, why don’t they demand some extant Abrams to replace the Leopards they want to send to Ukraine?
Poland will do as they are told. They've seen what happened to Turkiye's F-35 order when they stepped out of line.
The only person that's it's worth getting the arsehole with over this is Biden. He could pick up the phone and transfer Poland's Fulcrums to Ukraine. He could give them 500 Abrams. He does none of this yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the US are not intentionally prolonging the conflict.
I don’t see how prolonging this conflict benefits the US more than a quick Russian defeat.
I've never been clear on that myself. The most I've seen attempted is that the US would like chaos in general to continue as they find that useful.
It's surely true that the US (and others, but particularly them), could do a lot more if they really wanted, boots on the ground and all that, and they have chosen not to do those various things for all sorts of reasons, but 'not doing as much as they possibly could' does not equal 'wants to prolong for as long as possible' in my head, it seems more of a range than those binary options. Yet I'm to believe that unless they send 500 Abrams, which I imagine would be criticised, that means they basically are responsible for it carrying on as long as possible? It seems a step too far.
The Americans are just salami slicing their support. They can't do too much all at once because it causes the Russian establishment to panic and do something rash. If it's just a slow tightening of the noose there isn't a moment that induces a dirty bomb or something like that.
So US delay on tanks is cleverly avoiding a Russian dirty bomb, but German delay on tanks is cowardly treachery. Got it.
There is a collection of rather pathetic (British) individuals on this board who simply won't criticise Uncle Sam regardless of the circumstances.
On topic. Re your 11% is not enough. I will be amazed if SKS keeps more than 90% of the Lab 2019 vote.
In my random sample of 8 family members he keeps 0%!!!
you considered they just humouring you?
You might want to consider the story of the lady in New York, in 1984, who couldn’t believe that Reagan had beat Mondale, because no one she knew was voting for Reagan.
"I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place."
I don’t think the hatred toward Ardern was any different to that I’ve seen toward
Liz Truss Boris Johnson Justin Trudeau Donald Trump Angela Rayner Keir Starmer Trans People Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists Meghan Markle The Gammonati Etc
I don’t think the hatred toward Ardern was any different to that I’ve seen toward
Liz Truss Boris Johnson Justin Trudeau Donald Trump Angela Rayner Keir Starmer Trans People Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists Meghan Markle The Gammonati Etc
It’s one of the “gifts” of social media.
The people that hated a left wing (ish) party from day one funnily enough still hate Ardern today.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand:
What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposals? You seem reluctant to address that.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
I'm not at all reluctant, but I don't comment because it's hard to get to the bottom of it because of all the stupid spin put on it, and also because, as I'm English, it's not much of my business to get het up about.
But I'll stick with the view I've put before: I'm fairly happy with the regulations (in England) for people who want to transition as they stand. I've known people go through the process, and it was very difficult for some, in multiple ways. But it is a big step, and often utterly irreversible. A one or two year transitioning process, where you get the drugs but before you get the ops, seems reasonable (though one transitioned person I know felt it far too onerous.)
But for me, the 'issue at hand' is dignity and respect for trans people, and allow them to live the lives they want.
Wifey is going a bit above and beyond for upcoming Holocaust Memorial Day, speaking to one of the surviving "Mengele twins". Now in her 90's, she was rescued by Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, who personally saved thousands of Jews both before and after the war (after being even more dangerous).
She is finishing a TV dramatisation of his life. It won't be easy watching in places. Some of the scrapes he got into are remarkable. As are the stories of some of the children he was able to save.
I don’t think the hatred toward Ardern was any different to that I’ve seen toward
Liz Truss Boris Johnson Justin Trudeau Donald Trump Angela Rayner Keir Starmer Trans People Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists Meghan Markle The Gammonati Etc
It’s one of the “gifts” of social media.
The people that hated a left wing (ish) party from day one funnily enough still hate Ardern today.
I don’t like Ardern. I never did. For years this has put me in a small minority of possibly one: liberal people who don’t like Jacinda Ardern.
I don’t see the point of great popularity or even (to some extent) empathetic leadership, unless you are willing and able to use it to effect progressive change.
I’m sure my colleagues didn’t realise they were standing in front of a hateful sign threatening violence against women & will distance themselves from it. I’m due in court again soon to give evidence against a trans rights activist who threatened to kill me.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
As far as Hipkins is concerned, is the problem Labour in general or Ardern in particular? There are those who vilify her but seem fairly sympathetic toward Labour while others loathe Labour in all aspects (basically they are "Communist").
Luxon seems to this observer to be the antithesis of Ardern - he doesn't seem that empathetic and you might well question his administrative skills looking at this tenure as CEO of Air NZ - yet he does it quietly and has a managerial competence which will I think appeal to many in NZ after the Ardern years where the mood may be for "less Government" meaning not so much public spending cuts as a less interventionist Government.
He has David Seymour on his Right flank and ACT and the current polls show a National/ACT coalition able to govern with a majority but Hipkins is possibly the one Labour figure who can challenge Luxon on the centre ground.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
How much of that was Peters wanting some revenge on National? It is, they say, a dish best served cold.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
How much of that was Peters wanting some revenge on National? It is, they say, a dish best served cold.
I’m not removing agency from the detestable Peters, I’m just noting that Ardern was quite happy to sup with the devil, and the bien pensant gave her an absolute free ride on it.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand:
What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposals? You seem reluctant to address that.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
I'm not at all reluctant, but I don't comment because it's hard to get to the bottom of it because of all the stupid spin put on it, and also because, as I'm English, it's not much of my business to get het up about.
But I'll stick with the view I've put before: I'm fairly happy with the regulations (in England) for people who want to transition as they stand. I've known people go through the process, and it was very difficult for some, in multiple ways. But it is a big step, and often utterly irreversible. A one or two year transitioning process, where you get the drugs but before you get the ops, seems reasonable (though one transitioned person I know felt it far too onerous.)
But for me, the 'issue at hand' is dignity and respect for trans people, and allow them to live the lives they want.
If the U.K. government is correct it will affect people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and specifically women who are at very much greater risk of violence and sexual assault from men (and that includes men who identify as women.) than vice versa.
The steps you set out would be swept away for anyone born or resident in Scotland and no safeguarding steps put in their place.
The problem with the debate is first it went from “No Debate” to “You are trying to kill all Trans people” when Trans Rights Activists were challenged.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
As far as Hipkins is concerned, is the problem Labour in general or Ardern in particular? There are those who vilify her but seem fairly sympathetic toward Labour while others loathe Labour in all aspects (basically they are "Communist").
Luxon seems to this observer to be the antithesis of Ardern - he doesn't seem that empathetic and you might well question his administrative skills looking at this tenure as CEO of Air NZ - yet he does it quietly and has a managerial competence which will I think appeal to many in NZ after the Ardern years where the mood may be for "less Government" meaning not so much public spending cuts as a less interventionist Government.
He has David Seymour on his Right flank and ACT and the current polls show a National/ACT coalition able to govern with a majority but Hipkins is possibly the one Labour figure who can challenge Luxon on the centre ground.
Fair to say that most Arden-hate is inherently right wing. On the left, criticism mostly took the form of excuse-making, for example, “she has been let down by colleagues / coalition partners / the media / the virus / global economic forces” etc.
Only latterly has left-wing criticism evolved into direct attacks on her competence.
Hipkins has spent his career as an “attack dog”. He is unlikeable. Luxon is unlikeable for different reasons (too rich, too corporate, too dilettante, too removed). My brother, currently based in Wellington, says it will be interesting to have an election between two inherently unlikeable leaders.
I am a big fan of David Seymour. ACT are economically too right wing but genuinely liberal in a way that seems to be vanishing from the Anglosphere.
"I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place."
it’s a fair point, Horse. Despite the effort number 10 put in to come across as on top of things and making headway either side of Christmas, it’s just not working for them. Sunak just seems even more weird and stupid, and the government even less on top of issues.
But I am missing the Saturday racing. Here I am back in this, arguing politics with a horse when I had 4 Haydock winners all picked out 😤
I come in from a cold morning walking around neighbourhood and the pastures, and mum and dad are drinking tea, eating Manor House , AND watching Lady Voyeur on Netflix with all sorts of BDSM antics on the screen 🫣
A trans person, pre-op, who saw fit to get naked in a woman's changing room would be a very straightforward illustration of this. The question of whether they are a man or a woman is simply irrelevant to the charge and the current bill would not change this.
Interesting - I wonder whether Police Scotland would pursue such a case.
They would arrest the complainant and the Crown Office would prosecute them and not the perpetrator. The police and Crown office in Scotland have lost the plot.
Wifey is going a bit above and beyond for upcoming Holocaust Memorial Day, speaking to one of the surviving "Mengele twins". Now in her 90's, she was rescued by Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, who personally saved thousands of Jews both before and after the war (after being even more dangerous).
She is finishing a TV dramatisation of his life. It won't be easy watching in places. Some of the scrapes he got into are remarkable. As are the stories of some of the children he was able to save.
It will be a while yet. Late 2024 at the earliest I would imagine.
Being a ) non Jewish and b ) female and c ) never having met Schonfeld, it has been challenging to say the least to write of his life. Not to say incredibly visceral in the detail. But those who knew him and his work have been very complimentary about what she has achieved.
Coincidentally, she has another Holocaust script about King Boris of Bulgaria, who played games with Hitler to save 50,000 Bulgarian Jews. He was successful in this, but paid the ultimate prize, most likely being poisoned on the orders of Hitler. It is 80 years since his death, but his role in saving these 50,000 is little known.
Spielberg tried to make this story years back, but Boris' widow was still alive then and was not in favour. You can see why he wanted to make it. - It's like Schindler's List on a grander scale - but with added Hitler.
I don’t think the hatred toward Ardern was any different to that I’ve seen toward
Liz Truss Boris Johnson Justin Trudeau Donald Trump Angela Rayner Keir Starmer Trans People Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists Meghan Markle The Gammonati Etc
It’s one of the “gifts” of social media.
The people that hated a left wing (ish) party from day one funnily enough still hate Ardern today.
I don’t like Ardern. I never did. For years this has put me in a small minority of possibly one: liberal people who don’t like Jacinda Ardern.
I don’t see the point of great popularity or even (to some extent) empathetic leadership, unless you are willing and able to use it to effect progressive change.
As a distant observer with little knowledge of NZ politics, Ardern's response to the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attack where 51 were murdered impressed me hugely - dignified and empathetic. For me, she has a lot of credit in the bank just for that.
I don’t think the hatred toward Ardern was any different to that I’ve seen toward
Liz Truss Boris Johnson Justin Trudeau Donald Trump Angela Rayner Keir Starmer Trans People Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists Meghan Markle The Gammonati Etc
It’s one of the “gifts” of social media.
The people that hated a left wing (ish) party from day one funnily enough still hate Ardern today.
I don’t like Ardern. I never did. For years this has put me in a small minority of possibly one: liberal people who don’t like Jacinda Ardern.
I don’t see the point of great popularity or even (to some extent) empathetic leadership, unless you are willing and able to use it to effect progressive change.
As a distant observer with little knowledge of NZ politics, Ardern's response to the 2019 Christchurch terrorist attack where 51 were murdered impressed me hugely - dignified and empathetic. For me, she has a lot of credit in the bank just for that.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
As far as Hipkins is concerned, is the problem Labour in general or Ardern in particular? There are those who vilify her but seem fairly sympathetic toward Labour while others loathe Labour in all aspects (basically they are "Communist").
Luxon seems to this observer to be the antithesis of Ardern - he doesn't seem that empathetic and you might well question his administrative skills looking at this tenure as CEO of Air NZ - yet he does it quietly and has a managerial competence which will I think appeal to many in NZ after the Ardern years where the mood may be for "less Government" meaning not so much public spending cuts as a less interventionist Government.
He has David Seymour on his Right flank and ACT and the current polls show a National/ACT coalition able to govern with a majority but Hipkins is possibly the one Labour figure who can challenge Luxon on the centre ground.
Fair to say that most Arden-hate is inherently right wing. On the left, criticism mostly took the form of excuse-making, for example, “she has been let down by colleagues / coalition partners / the media / the virus / global economic forces” etc.
Only latterly has left-wing criticism evolved into direct attacks on her competence.
Hipkins has spent his career as an “attack dog”. He is unlikeable. Luxon is unlikeable for different reasons (too rich, too corporate, too dilettante, too removed). My brother, currently based in Wellington, says it will be interesting to have an election between two inherently unlikeable leaders.
I am a big fan of David Seymour. ACT are economically too right wing but genuinely liberal in a way that seems to be vanishing from the Anglosphere.
Interesting - it's my experience everyone has a definition of "liberal" Yet in the next breath they bemoan the absence of a liberal party - I suspect there are liberal elements within all parties even those not calling themselves liberal or Liberal.
The trouble is, I don't know how you define "liberal" currently. Is it from the economic (Gladstonian, Manchester) side or from the social side? Ideally, it's elements of both but parts of that become contradictory.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand:
What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposals? You seem reluctant to address that.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
I'm not at all reluctant, but I don't comment because it's hard to get to the bottom of it because of all the stupid spin put on it, and also because, as I'm English, it's not much of my business to get het up about.
But I'll stick with the view I've put before: I'm fairly happy with the regulations (in England) for people who want to transition as they stand. I've known people go through the process, and it was very difficult for some, in multiple ways. But it is a big step, and often utterly irreversible. A one or two year transitioning process, where you get the drugs but before you get the ops, seems reasonable (though one transitioned person I know felt it far too onerous.)
But for me, the 'issue at hand' is dignity and respect for trans people, and allow them to live the lives they want.
The Scottish government were doing nothing to help your "issue at hand" and almost everybody in hte country cares not a jot about transgenders going about their lives but when they ar eshouting from every rooftop and apoisoning teh debate as has happened in Scotland then all that has happened is that people are sitting up and noticing how aggressive and nasty the whole thing is. If they just got on with their lives then few if any would bother them.
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Wifey is going a bit above and beyond for upcoming Holocaust Memorial Day, speaking to one of the surviving "Mengele twins". Now in her 90's, she was rescued by Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, who personally saved thousands of Jews both before and after the war (after being even more dangerous).
She is finishing a TV dramatisation of his life. It won't be easy watching in places. Some of the scrapes he got into are remarkable. As are the stories of some of the children he was able to save.
It will be a while yet. Late 2024 at the earliest I would imagine.
Being a ) non Jewish and b ) female and c ) never having met Schonfeld, it has been challenging to say the least to write of his life. Not to say incredibly visceral in the detail. But those who knew him and his work have been very complimentary about what she has achieved.
Coincidentally, she has another Holocaust script about King Boris of Bulgaria, who played games with Hitler to save 50,000 Bulgarian Jews. He was successful in this, but paid the ultimate prize, most likely being poisoned on the orders of Hitler. It is 80 years since his death, but his role in saving these 50,000 is little known.
Spielberg tried to make this story years back, but Boris' widow was still alive then and was not in favour. You can see why he wanted to make it. - It's like Schindler's List on a grander scale - but with added Hitler.
I had never heard that story about the Bulgarian King. I've got some reading to do now! And part of me is now imagining a CGI'd up 'young' Harrison Ford riding a motorbike through the Bulgarian mountains, Nazi's in hot pursuit...
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
Trans people have been using womens toilets for along as there have been trans people and womens toilets. I don't see any reason to change this.
Changing room? Rape Crisis centres? A reason to change this might involve opening legal rights to a much wider range of people than currently legally do, including autogynephiles and men who think they are women - not just trans women. This is what the Scottish government proposes.
I'm talking about women's toilets. (And yes, I do find that a weird sentence to type). Being able to go to the toilet is a rather fundamental human requirement, and one you seem to want to remove from a small subset of people.
I didn’t say I wanted to remove it from a small subset of people. I think we should consider very carefully before expanding it to a much larger set of people and I don’t think women’s views on the matter should be ignored or shouted down.
Good, so that's progress. Men who are transitioning should freely, and without harassment, be able to use women's toilets. Even if, as some say on here, they still have their tackle. Because the conversation on here seems to be that they cannot.
As an aside, yours is not the only women's view on this. Mrs J (who doesn't 'do' social media like PB), vehemently disagrees with your views on this. Should her views and concerns be ignored or shouted down?
There is not one 'women's' view on this. If there was, it might be a lot easier to 'solve'. Neither side speaks for all 'women'; only themselves.
You ignore the issue at hand - the ScotGov proposal to significantly widen the definition of “men who are transitioning”. If someone has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as a woman for two years we can be reasonably confident that that is their settled will. Someone without a diagnosis and has lived as a woman for 3 months may be another matter entirely - and that is what the concern is about.
The reference to “women’s views” was wrt the ScotGov ignoring multiple submissions from women’s groups and if you think people who propose such views are not shouted down you haven’t been paying attention.
I'm not ignoring the issue at hand:
What is your view of the Scottish Government’s proposals? You seem reluctant to address that.
Why do you think the Scottish government has “suddenly” run into problems when they ignored advice they didn’t like?
Which women’s groups are supportive of the Scottish governments proposals (ideally ones not funded by the Scottish government)?
I'm not at all reluctant, but I don't comment because it's hard to get to the bottom of it because of all the stupid spin put on it, and also because, as I'm English, it's not much of my business to get het up about.
But I'll stick with the view I've put before: I'm fairly happy with the regulations (in England) for people who want to transition as they stand. I've known people go through the process, and it was very difficult for some, in multiple ways. But it is a big step, and often utterly irreversible. A one or two year transitioning process, where you get the drugs but before you get the ops, seems reasonable (though one transitioned person I know felt it far too onerous.)
But for me, the 'issue at hand' is dignity and respect for trans people, and allow them to live the lives they want.
The Scottish government were doing nothing to help your "issue at hand" and almost everybody in hte country cares not a jot about transgenders going about their lives but when they ar eshouting from every rooftop and apoisoning teh debate as has happened in Scotland then all that has happened is that people are sitting up and noticing how aggressive and nasty the whole thing is. If they just got on with their lives then few if any would bother them.
"cares not a jot about transgenders going about their lives"
I'd argue your comments below show that you care, e.g. "So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one."
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
As far as Hipkins is concerned, is the problem Labour in general or Ardern in particular? There are those who vilify her but seem fairly sympathetic toward Labour while others loathe Labour in all aspects (basically they are "Communist").
Luxon seems to this observer to be the antithesis of Ardern - he doesn't seem that empathetic and you might well question his administrative skills looking at this tenure as CEO of Air NZ - yet he does it quietly and has a managerial competence which will I think appeal to many in NZ after the Ardern years where the mood may be for "less Government" meaning not so much public spending cuts as a less interventionist Government.
He has David Seymour on his Right flank and ACT and the current polls show a National/ACT coalition able to govern with a majority but Hipkins is possibly the one Labour figure who can challenge Luxon on the centre ground.
Fair to say that most Arden-hate is inherently right wing. On the left, criticism mostly took the form of excuse-making, for example, “she has been let down by colleagues / coalition partners / the media / the virus / global economic forces” etc.
Only latterly has left-wing criticism evolved into direct attacks on her competence.
Hipkins has spent his career as an “attack dog”. He is unlikeable. Luxon is unlikeable for different reasons (too rich, too corporate, too dilettante, too removed). My brother, currently based in Wellington, says it will be interesting to have an election between two inherently unlikeable leaders.
I am a big fan of David Seymour. ACT are economically too right wing but genuinely liberal in a way that seems to be vanishing from the Anglosphere.
Interesting - it's my experience everyone has a definition of "liberal" Yet in the next breath they bemoan the absence of a liberal party - I suspect there are liberal elements within all parties even those not calling themselves liberal or Liberal.
The trouble is, I don't know how you define "liberal" currently. Is it from the economic (Gladstonian, Manchester) side or from the social side? Ideally, it's elements of both but parts of that become contradictory.
Good question. I mean a concern for personal liberalism, and the institutions and policies that protect personal liberalism. ACT are sound on China, for example, which is surprising given where you’d expect some of their funding to come from (rich Chinese immigrants).
Olaf Scholz has stuck to his Ukraine musn't lose and Russia musn't win maxim. Another way of looking at it of course is that Ukraine must not win and Russia must not lose. I'm starting to think that is German policy. They do not want a Russian defeat. What exactly do they envisage? And are they really going to wreck their actual alliances for the sake of a relationship with a barbarian empire?
No. As I understand it, Scholz wants full US commitment to any escalation in terms of weapons supplies. Maybe that's stupid, but I find it easier to understand than the US position.
The US is sending a whole new tranche of weapons. They've sent Bradleys. The Abrams are very heavy on fuel and will take longer to train on. As well as the logistical difficulties of getting them there. And most of the Leopard tanks aren't even German. I'm sorry it just looks like an excuse.
The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine, so why doesn't the US want Ukraine to have tanks?
You mention Bradleys. Ukraine also asked for these and the roughly equivalent German Marders many months ago. Germany also said "not alone" on Marders, the US said no. When 2 weeks ago the US announced it would send Bradleys Germany announced it would send Marders on the very same day.
I think Germany should send Leopards, at least allow others to, without a US commitment on Abrams tanks, but it's just a bit weird to hear various versions of "Germany is crazy/wants Russia to win" or whatever from people who seem find the US position perfectly reasonable.
"The point is that an announcement on Abrams tanks (that could have been made 6 months or more ago) would also get Leopards to Ukraine"
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
Germany's position is such that they invoke Schrödinger's tank: the provision of tanks is both linked to, and not linked to, US provision of Abrams. Sometimes they say it is, sometimes they say it is not. They have not been consistent in the least.
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
There are gender neutral facilities in most places - the disabled ones, which people use for all sorts of circumstances - I see no reason why needing privacy because one is transitioning shouldn't be added. It's not fair to place the additional cost of providing yet another set of loos on businesses.
In many instances, (mainly) trans women won’t use gender neutral facilities as it ‘invalidates’ them.
If there’s one nation on earth that should know what genocide looks like, it’s Germany. And yet here we are, with them denying supposed allies Poland from supplying military equipment to a fight that might very easily reach Polish territory if not stopped.
Sometimes poor decisions are made out of fear, misjudgement or incompetence. And sometimes they are motivated by corruption. I don’t know which this is. But Germany’s long standing policy of systematically creating a strategic energy dependency on Putin’s Russia is something every sensible German should be shining the brightest of lights on. Especially in light of Schroeder’s activities post politics.
German positioning on Ukraine is disturbingly transactional and reflects the prevalent sociopolitical view of the world in Germany. No manner of blame shifting attempted by some here can disguise what’s really going on. German politicians don’t give a damn for their Eastern European “allies” and think only of tomorrow’s export earnings. Shameful. This will not be quickly forgotten.
If there’s one nation on earth that should know what genocide looks like, it’s Germany. And yet here we are, with them denying supposed allies Poland from supplying military equipment to a fight that might very easily reach Polish territory if not stopped.
Sometimes poor decisions are made out of fear, misjudgement or incompetence. And sometimes they are motivated by corruption. I don’t know which this is. But Germany’s long standing policy of systematically creating a strategic energy dependency on Putin’s Russia is something every sensible German should be shining the brightest of lights on. Especially in light of Schroeder’s activities post politics.
German positioning on Ukraine is disturbingly transactional and reflects the prevalent sociopolitical view of the world in Germany. No manner of blame shifting attempted by some here can disguise what’s really going on. German politicians don’t give a damn for their Eastern European “allies” and think only of tomorrow’s export earnings. Shameful. This will not be quickly forgotten.
Some German politicians, who are found especially (but by no means exclusively) in the SPD.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
There are gender neutral facilities in most places - the disabled ones, which people use for all sorts of circumstances - I see no reason why needing privacy because one is transitioning shouldn't be added. It's not fair to place the additional cost of providing yet another set of loos on businesses.
In many instances, (mainly) trans women won’t use gender neutral facilities as it ‘invalidates’ them.
I work with two trans women, neither of them think like that. I think you're making this up
A YouGov poll for The Times found that the public overwhelmingly back the UK government’s stance and reject the Scottish parliament plans for self-identification.
Badenoch believes that self-identification — the ability to change gender without medical diagnosis — puts women and girls at risk from predators. “We have no problem with that in the sense that we want people who are trans to be able to live their lives freely and as they wish,” she says. “The problem is that self-identification also makes life a lot easier for other people we don’t want to have those sorts of freedoms. Predators would be able to exploit any system that says you can just say you are what you are.”
“It’s also quite bad for trans people. They then get conflated and associated with the predators and people who are looking to do bad things. That’s why having a stricter regime rather than a loose regime is quite important. The problem is around the rhetoric. Rather than having a disagreement on whether you think self-identification is OK or not OK, people who have a different view are then abused, insulted, called transphobic. That’s what has really toxified the debate, and made a lot of people scared to say what they think.” https://archive.ph/rhZBt
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
Why on earth was it thought appropriate for Zahawi to “negotiate” his tax bill WHILE Chancellor?
It’s probably handled at arms length but the “optics” are absolutely atrocious. Why give your opponents so much ammunition?
Because it was worth several million to Zahawi if he could evade tax, Boris was busy with his own graft, and Case was deliberately appointed to pursue a see no evil policy?
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
How much of that was Peters wanting some revenge on National? It is, they say, a dish best served cold.
I’m not removing agency from the detestable Peters, I’m just noting that Ardern was quite happy to sup with the devil, and the bien pensant gave her an absolute free ride on it.
I remember the opprobrium heaped on Theresa May for doing S&C with the DUP in 2017.
We'd have heard rather less of this had, for example, Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband done so.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
No, she had genuine appeal to many New Zealanders, and for a long time.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
No, she had genuine appeal to many New Zealanders, and for a long time.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
No, she had genuine appeal to many New Zealanders, and for a long time.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
Isn't that the default view of anyone left wing?
Ok, but my point was and is that an avowedly left wing government that is incompetent is not actually better than an avowedly centre right government that is competent.
Indeed that’s essentially what happened in 2017; Ardern replaced the very competent and centrist Bill English, whose party (National) won more votes than hers.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
No, she had genuine appeal to many New Zealanders, and for a long time.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
And, yet, as you say she failed in her first election, did win a Covid one at the height of the pandemic, and then rapidly became unpopular in the years that followed.
I was shocked at what I read about the state of New Zealand today - I can understand why so many are angry.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
I don't really get why people get so passionate about foreign leaders, when it can be shown they haven't really looked into anything beyond the headlines. I cannot muster up hatred of Ardern because I haven't looked into her domestic record all that much, but it seems very common for people to not just like her but think she is a pioneering colossos based seemingly on a few clips of her speaking compassionately about stuff.
I give a little pass on feelings about american politics because we actually hear quite a lot about it, even some minutiae, on the news.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
No, she had genuine appeal to many New Zealanders, and for a long time.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
And, yet, as you say she failed in her first election, did win a Covid one at the height of the pandemic, and then rapidly became unpopular in the years that followed.
I was shocked at what I read about the state of New Zealand today - I can understand why so many are angry.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
I don't really get why people get so passionate about foreign leaders, when it can be shown they haven't really looked into anything beyond the headlines. I cannot muster up hatred of Ardern because I haven't looked into her domestic record all that much, but it seems very common for people to not just like her but think she is a pioneering colossos based seemingly on a few clips of her speaking compassionately about stuff.
I give a little pass on feelings about american politics because we actually hear quite a lot about it, even some minutiae, on the news.
Generally speaking, it's because they are using them as a proxy to signal things about themselves to their peer group.
Ardern had an extraordinary gift for empathy and I’ve no doubt she is personally kind and genuine.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
She seems to be loved only by those who weren't New Zealanders.
I don't really get why people get so passionate about foreign leaders, when it can be shown they haven't really looked into anything beyond the headlines. I cannot muster up hatred of Ardern because I haven't looked into her domestic record all that much, but it seems very common for people to not just like her but think she is a pioneering colossos based seemingly on a few clips of her speaking compassionately about stuff.
I give a little pass on feelings about american politics because we actually hear quite a lot about it, even some minutiae, on the news.
Generally speaking, it's because they are using them as a proxy to signal things about themselves to their peer group.
Clearly the GRR has far-reaching implications for women. But what happens when they point this out? First, the bombastic know-alls who’ve ignored every female writer, lawyer and policymaker for five years pull out their manly opinions. Like Alastair Campbell, who chided Laura Kuenssberg for an interview with Sir Keir Starmer in which she dwelt on the GRR, which affects half the population — but not the important half. Or Lord Falconer, who pompously wafts away concerns, tweeting that “the vast majority” of new male GRC holders “are likely to be genuine”. So what’s a few women facing sexual assault or indecent exposure, an intimidated lesbian or two, or a class of girls unhappily undressing with a teenage boy? These “It might never happen, love” guys don’t think women deserve legislation that protects us in principle. We’re expected to pray that careless laws, framed for others’ benefit, don’t hurt us in practice. And if they do, it’s just an “isolated incident”. Suck it up. And the next one. There’s no pattern. Let’s ignore the inconvenient truth that males commit 98 per cent of sex crime and 90 per cent of violence, whatever their gender identity.
Then there are the angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices. No debate. Shut up, bitch. Sit down, bigot. We’ll ban your meeting, ignore your legal submissions.
I mean, that piece is typical. "Anyone who disagrees with me is awful."
There are well-meaning, genuine voices arguing passionately on both sides of this topic. Painting your opposition is not helpful.as "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices."
One of the issues in the debate has been framing - is it about “Trans Rights” or “Women’s Rights”?
It’s about both, clearly, but many of the proponents of the former seek to deny and belittle the latter - which is what that column reflects.
And it’s not a “right vs left” or “gay vs straight” issue - many of the women’s rights defenders are left wing lesbians - and the two gentlemen upthread are straight Labour politicians, which is why tropes about “It’s just like Section 28” are so lazy and fatuous.
Unfortunately there is no shortage of "angry men who can’t even bear to hear women’s voices." arguing against women - see Lloyd Russel Moyle’s disgraceful behaviour in the HoC as a recent example.
IMV it's quite simple: let people be what they want to be, as long as they don't hurt others in the process.
Do you think substantially expanding the group of people who can gain access to opposite sex spaces, removing medical diagnosis and reducing the age at which it can be done might lead to others being hurt?
Possibly, and I'm not in favour of all of those. But the issues is with the people doing the hurt, not the group.
Do you think that forcing a man who is transitioning to be a woman, to go into the male toilets, might lead to them getting hurt? Do you think making trans people fearful of using any public toilet might lead to hurt?
If you are suggesting men are a violent threat to women then I agree - the stats are overwhelmingly in favour of men committing most violent and sexual crime.
I would suggest the best solution would be to provide gender neutral toilets, not unilaterally open women’s toilets to men who claim they are women and to trans women.
What would your solution be?
There are gender neutral facilities in most places - the disabled ones, which people use for all sorts of circumstances - I see no reason why needing privacy because one is transitioning shouldn't be added. It's not fair to place the additional cost of providing yet another set of loos on businesses.
In many instances, (mainly) trans women won’t use gender neutral facilities as it ‘invalidates’ them.
Comments
Among Tory voters:
How would you feel about a Lab win?
Satisfied: 22% (!)
Not bothered: 23%
Dissatisfied: 52%
Campaigns benefit from feared/reviled opponents. This ain't that.
Compares to 76% for Lab voters about a Tory win.
Keir Starmer has saved the Labour Party - and has brought it to its best position since 1997. All in three years.
"I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place."
Liz Truss
Boris Johnson
Justin Trudeau
Donald Trump
Angela Rayner
Keir Starmer
Trans People
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists
Meghan Markle
The Gammonati
Etc
It’s one of the “gifts” of social media.
However as an administrator she was quite astonishingly poor. And it’s weird how everyone ignored the fact that she actually lost her first election and only came to power via a deal with NZ’s answer to Nigel Farage.
Put it like this. Which organisations deal with children that haven’t had a massive scandal about abuse. Yet. List them. Wait…
But I'll stick with the view I've put before: I'm fairly happy with the regulations (in England) for people who want to transition as they stand. I've known people go through the process, and it was very difficult for some, in multiple ways. But it is a big step, and often utterly irreversible. A one or two year transitioning process, where you get the drugs but before you get the ops, seems reasonable (though one transitioned person I know felt it far too onerous.)
But for me, the 'issue at hand' is dignity and respect for trans people, and allow them to live the lives they want.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2023/jan/20/lunar-new-year-and-toadzilla-fridays-best-photos
I don’t see the point of great popularity or even (to some extent) empathetic leadership, unless you are willing and able to use it to effect progressive change.
Joanna Cherry’s charitable take:
I’m sure my colleagues didn’t realise they were standing in front of a hateful sign threatening violence against women & will distance themselves from it. I’m due in court again soon to give evidence against a trans rights activist who threatened to kill me.
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1616796097602588673
Luxon seems to this observer to be the antithesis of Ardern - he doesn't seem that empathetic and you might well question his administrative skills looking at this tenure as CEO of Air NZ - yet he does it quietly and has a managerial competence which will I think appeal to many in NZ after the Ardern years where the mood may be for "less Government" meaning not so much public spending cuts as a less interventionist Government.
He has David Seymour on his Right flank and ACT and the current polls show a National/ACT coalition able to govern with a majority but Hipkins is possibly the one Labour figure who can challenge Luxon on the centre ground.
The steps you set out would be swept away for anyone born or resident in Scotland and no safeguarding steps put in their place.
The problem with the debate is first it went from “No Debate” to “You are trying to kill all Trans people” when Trans Rights Activists were challenged.
Here’s Mumsnet’s take on S.35:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4721613-uk-government-confirms-it-will-block-scottish-grr?page=1
Which might explain this:
https://twitter.com/Lorna9100M/status/1615783825958649864?s=20&t=m-rZaUjAbhzXJ6P7kP9--w
No.
The thing that would get Leopard 2's to Ukraine is Germany saying: "Here, have these Leopards."
Linking it to the US's actions is just perverse. Either it is the correct thing to send them, or it is not.
Only latterly has left-wing criticism evolved into direct attacks on her competence.
Hipkins has spent his career as an “attack dog”. He is unlikeable. Luxon is unlikeable for different reasons (too rich, too corporate, too dilettante, too removed). My brother, currently based in Wellington, says it will be interesting to have an election between two inherently unlikeable leaders.
I am a big fan of David Seymour.
ACT are economically too right wing but genuinely liberal in a way that seems to be vanishing from the Anglosphere.
But I am missing the Saturday racing. Here I am back in this, arguing politics with a horse when I had 4 Haydock winners all picked out 😤
I come in from a cold morning walking around neighbourhood and the pastures, and mum and dad are drinking tea, eating Manor House , AND watching Lady Voyeur on Netflix with all sorts of BDSM antics on the screen 🫣
Being a ) non Jewish and b ) female and c ) never having met Schonfeld, it has been challenging to say the least to write of his life. Not to say incredibly visceral in the detail. But those who knew him and his work have been very complimentary about what she has achieved.
Coincidentally, she has another Holocaust script about King Boris of Bulgaria, who played games with Hitler to save 50,000 Bulgarian Jews. He was successful in this, but paid the ultimate prize, most likely being poisoned on the orders of Hitler. It is 80 years since his death, but his role in saving these 50,000 is little known.
Spielberg tried to make this story years back, but Boris' widow was still alive then and was not in favour. You can see why he wanted to make it. - It's like Schindler's List on a grander scale - but with added Hitler.
The trouble is, I don't know how you define "liberal" currently. Is it from the economic (Gladstonian, Manchester) side or from the social side? Ideally, it's elements of both but parts of that become contradictory.
If they just got on with their lives then few if any would bother them.
And yet Germany, however wrongly, has consistently linked them, as they did with Marders and other types of weapons. This is a fact that you really seem to have difficulty with for some reason.
It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. Why do you deny an obvious reality? It's just weird.
I'd argue your comments below show that you care, e.g. "So you would be quite happy for your wife to be naked in changing rooms whilst some total stranger was waving his willie about. Pull the other one."
I mean a concern for personal liberalism, and the institutions and policies that protect personal liberalism. ACT are sound on China, for example, which is surprising given where you’d expect some of their funding to come from (rich Chinese immigrants).
"It is a simple fact that Leopards will go to Ukraine if the US makes an announcement on Abrams. "
It is not a fact, as it is unproven. I'm dubious about it, given Germany's behaviour so far. They might well give some excuse, or promise them in 2026.
It is quite simple: if Germany wants Ukraine to have Leopard 2's, give them them. At the very least, let other send theirs.
They don't.
LAB: 50% (+2)
CON: 24% (-4)
LDM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-2)
REF: 5% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
Via @Omnisis, On 19 January,
Changes w/ 12 January.
Did Johnson know the man he appointed to oversee the nati… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616829644606509059
He was never actually fit for the job, and everything we learn about his judgment is damning. He is part of the institutional rot.
Sometimes poor decisions are made out of fear, misjudgement or incompetence. And sometimes they are motivated by corruption. I don’t know which this is. But Germany’s long standing policy of systematically creating a strategic energy dependency on Putin’s Russia is something every sensible German should be shining the brightest of lights on. Especially in light of Schroeder’s activities post politics.
German positioning on Ukraine is disturbingly transactional and reflects the prevalent sociopolitical view of the world in Germany. No manner of blame shifting attempted by some here can disguise what’s really going on. German politicians don’t give a damn for their Eastern European “allies” and think only of tomorrow’s export earnings. Shameful. This will not be quickly forgotten.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0ac3a0da-98f7-11ed-a130-baced48eb788?shareToken=244b2a081e8765d7ea17ad54488ab213
Clarification: Only formally, as KCIII is actually responsible for their grifting, as much as he is for their governating.
For one thing, he and rest of The Firm are HIGHLY competent at doing their own grifting, don't need Z, BJ & etc., etc. to do it for 'em.
My 15 year old son talking about Nadim Zahawi and his tax affairs. Given he seems to get all his current affairs from TikTok that’s noteworthy.
“It’s also quite bad for trans people. They then get conflated and associated with the predators and people who are looking to do bad things. That’s why having a stricter regime rather than a loose regime is quite important. The problem is around the rhetoric. Rather than having a disagreement on whether you think self-identification is OK or not OK, people who have a different view are then abused, insulted, called transphobic. That’s what has really toxified the debate, and made a lot of people scared to say what they think.”
https://archive.ph/rhZBt
He's one of those people who's a smart businessman, and very interested in politics, but rather terrible at it.
We'd have heard rather less of this had, for example, Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband done so.
As I said, I was in very small minority, within the centre left anyway. Farmers never took to her.
I had many arguments with my brother, who is more left wing than me, over Ardern. He would accept the substance of my criticisms but make (to my mind) a series of excuses for her which amounted essentially to an idea that a left wing government was preferable to the alternative.
(No doubt he would not accept my characterisation).
Indeed that’s essentially what happened in 2017; Ardern replaced the very competent and centrist Bill English, whose party (National) won more votes than hers.
I was shocked at what I read about the state of New Zealand today - I can understand why so many are angry.
I give a little pass on feelings about american politics because we actually hear quite a lot about it, even some minutiae, on the news.