Attacks might be tempting but they don't always work. I recall disagreeing with pro-EU types here who were giggling confidently about Cameron's 'little England' comments, as if attaching an insult to the majority of the electorate with the name of Farage would make it work.
Starmer's over-egged the cake. His poll lead is so big the effect will likely be minimal, but this is a mistep nonetheless.
Yes, I’m very disappointed in him today.
It doesn’t really matter that he’s disappointed me though. I’m probably a fairly atypical previous Tory voter who will give Labour a chance next time. And it will take a lot more than this to dissuade me from doing so, given the current state of the government. I probably don’t fit the profile of voter he’s trying to attract. But he didn’t need to play this card and the fact he has done so demeans him, in all honesty.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Its not a bad article by Starmer in the Daily Mail. It is depressing because it is pandering to a public perception of an issue rather than perhaps the reality of it, but such is politics in a democracy.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
I think what Starmer is banking on is the Government having to hit back. Rather than joining the Tories in the gutter, he's attempting to drag them into a fight about law and justice and he feels confident he can get the Tories on this. The adverts will continue until the Tories respond, and when they do, they'll highlight their own record.
That's what I think the strategy is, anyway.
You can’t have it that one party using dirty tactics is being “in the gutter” but the other is some kind of astute tactical play though.
They’ve both gone into the gutter. That’s it. It’s cheap politics. I’m not saying it won’t necessarily work with certain voters, but I do think it’s a risky decision.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
They said the same about the EU right up to the exit poll.....
It was true. Most people didn't care. It was clear from the polls on what were people's concerns. However if you then have a referendum and both sides spend oodles of time and money it moves to the top of the list. The same would happen with any issue. That is obvious surely regardless of which side of the argument you are on. You name the topic and if you put this much media on it, people will be engaged and it will move to the top.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Its not a bad article by Starmer in the Daily Mail. It is depressing because it is pandering to a public perception of an issue rather than perhaps the reality of it, but such is politics in a democracy.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
I think what Starmer is banking on is the Government having to hit back. Rather than joining the Tories in the gutter, he's attempting to drag them into a fight about law and justice and he feels confident he can get the Tories on this. The adverts will continue until the Tories respond, and when they do, they'll highlight their own record.
That's what I think the strategy is, anyway.
You can’t have it that one party using dirty tactics is being “in the gutter” but the other is some kind of astute tactical play though.
They’ve both gone into the gutter. That’s it. It’s cheap politics. I’m not saying it won’t necessarily work with certain voters, but I do think it’s a risky decision.
Should be good for the Lib Dems, as long as we don't get involved too.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
Now Starmer is writing op-ed pieces in the Daily Mail, of all places, doubling down on the strategy and accusing the Tories of being soft on crime, saying that a Labour government will increase minimum sentences.
This will backfire spectacularly, judging by the comments underneath the piece.
Getting an article in the Daily Mail that allows him to attack Sunak on crime and talk about Labour policy doesn’t look like backfiring to me. I’d imagine it’s exactly what Labour was aiming for. The unfortunate reality is that these kinds of ads work. I wish they didn’t.
Its not a bad article by Starmer in the Daily Mail. It is depressing because it is pandering to a public perception of an issue rather than perhaps the reality of it, but such is politics in a democracy.
I think the problem here goes back to the personal attacks on Sunak.
I think what Starmer is banking on is the Government having to hit back. Rather than joining the Tories in the gutter, he's attempting to drag them into a fight about law and justice and he feels confident he can get the Tories on this. The adverts will continue until the Tories respond, and when they do, they'll highlight their own record.
That's what I think the strategy is, anyway.
I think the real problem about policy on crime and punishment is that it is an area where politics can never satisfy the dark instincts of the general public. You can start to make the running on it but people will then keep demanding greater and greater severity which can be delivered only with a simultaneous decline in the standards of civilisation.
Starmer will of course know this. I guess it is a case of throwing a bit of red meat on banging up paedos to convey a wider policy agenda which involves properly funding the courts, which at base is the structural failing with the justice system.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Yeah, that is the thing. There were reports about labour bosses being 'happy' with how the ads had gone down, conclusions apparently based on anecdotal evidence and the fact that it had generated a lot of publicity, although the publicity it did generate was largely self generated, by reference to unease within the party about the ads.
I think that the experience of the past, is that the tories will prove themselves to be more ruthless and effective at this business, labour may come to regret this change in direction.
It is a real misstep by Starmer and labour
As a former labour stragist put it you have to be certain your poster is believable and credible and this is not and the message just gets lost
He went on to say he would not have published it
Starmer and labour have put themselves alongside Braverman with these ill conceived posters
Good morning. You said earlier that Labour "have opened a can of worms". Your last point here demonstrates that the can is already open and worms were already flooding out.
The *Tories* started this fight. In the last weeks alone we have had Braverman both finger an entire ethnic group as being responsible (solely) for child abuse. And caught lying to the House with her demonisation of refugees as economic migrants.
Whipping up the ignorance and prejudices of parts of the electorate is an old Tory trick. They now have new "news" outlets available to normalise their worms (whither two Tory MPs interviewing a minister on GBeebies), and a coterie of 2019 mince MPs willing to do anything to line their pockets save their seats.
There is something deeply unpleasant about the Starmer posters, and as others have pointed out a loose connection with reality. But when ministers lie to the house and openly spew racism is there another choice? It is painfully laughable to suggest that Labour have started this when the floor is awash with Tory worms spilling from all the cans they had already opened.
Yes, they're wrong, but I contest that they don't understand the situation in Scotland. The issue is they feel like they cannot state it officially as they need to make English voters really really scared of a Labour government in order to have a chance, and knowingly nodding at such a strategy north of the border might undermine that.
As OGH suggests the voters in Scotland may well do it regardless, to the net benefit (they hope) of Scon, Slab and even Sld.
Missing the point, though, isn't it? As a good Unionist Mr Ross should knuckle down to what his organ-grinder tells him to do.
Highlights that these London pretendy Scottish parties are useless and need to cheat tomake any gains.
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
A lot of hypocrital, whinging, snowflakery from the fan club this weekend!
There’s a lot of people tying themselves in knots trying to justify the Labour position too, when if it had come from the Tories they would be rightly calling it out.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
I wonder if he'll flag SpaceX or Tesla as being 'government funded' ?
A lot of hypocrital, whinging, snowflakery from the fan club this weekend!
There’s a lot of people tying themselves in knots trying to justify the Labour position too, when if it had come from the Tories they would be rightly calling it out.
There is some merit if posters call out and criticise negative politics from their own party. There is no merit in calling out and criticising negative politics from the opposition but turning a blind eye to it from your own. That is just hypocritical, whinging, snowflakery.
"Imagine the glee: a shabby little troll, dead to rights. It turned out that not only had Junius been leaving sneering reviews of a competitor, but he had had no hesitation in giving five-star reviews to works by Jonathan Oates. When he was contacted by a national newspaper following the story up, Dr Oates apologised and admitted he might have been too ‘harsh’. It’s not the ‘harshness’, it should be said, so much as the cowardice that’s the issue here: though that’s a failing that it’s less flattering to admit to. Junius’s one-star review has now been revised on Amazon to a grudgingly generous three-star review; which is perhaps what you might expect had he reviewed it under his own name in the first place.
It’s not just mid-ranking true-crime books this issue affects. Some readers may remember when so distinguished a historian as Orlando Figes was caught out doing the same thing. He used a pseudonym to call books by rival historians Rachel Polonsky and Robert Service ‘hard to follow’ and ‘awful’, while gauchely praising one of his own as ‘a fascinating book…[that] leaves the reader awed, humbled, yet uplifted’. When he was called out on this, he first denied doing any such thing and tried to shut his critics down with threats of legal action. Then he tried, some will think ungallantly, to claim his wife had been responsible. Finally, he copped to the whole thing. No doubt he’s hoping that the literary and academic worlds have forgotten the affair, but prigs like me consider it an ineradicable stain on his reputation." (£)
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
I’m not defending the posters and I’ve said they are a mistake but I’m pointing your hypocrisy and that of the Tory Party.
Not mine when I did not endorse Johnson or Braverman's comments
I support Sunak as I see him as a decent and competent PM and will defend him accordingly
Sunak never answers a question at PMQs and attacks Starmer on a very personal level each week. Sunak's claims are often on the lines of Starmer is a friend of... (pick a stereotyped negative of your choice). These posters are blunt, unpleasant and a mistake, and Starmer may have descended to the gutter, but make no mistake, Sunak was already there.
You latch onto any anti-Starmer bandwagon you can find. Now who was the poster who promoted Partygate, above and beyond?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Yep. As usual the screeching about trans women as being a potential threat ignores that the vast majority of actual threats to women - where they are attacked - is by men. Why would I need to go through the charade of pretending to be trans to follow a woman into a toilet to assault them? I'd just go in anyway as men already do.
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
If you want to be taxing ‘wealth’ rather than ‘income’, then property taxes need to rise significantly.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
I don't think Sunak supports paedophiles either.
I do have concerns that Sunak and his government are so desperate to cut headline tax rates that they will be tempted to cut corners on things that only the state can do. Like law and order and child protection.
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
If you want to be taxing ‘wealth’ rather than ‘income’, then property taxes need to rise significantly.
So tax property. Don't apply a tax to pay for something the government should fund. Don't cap the amount of funding that can be raised so that the service in question has to be cut. What they have done to adult social care is criminal - a big cut with the recipients the subject of anger from the people suddenly saying "why am I paying for that?"
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
What Macron says about Taiwan -- the core security theme in the Indo-Pacific -- vindicates the Australian decision to cancel the submarine deal with France and to create AUKUS with the UK and the US.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
Really? I'd argue it's a classic case of bigotry.
There's a great deal to be said about your comment, but let's take just one point: who polices it? If a woman thinks that another person in the toilet is male, what does she do? Does she call the police? Does she confront the person directly? And what happens when (as happens) they get it wrong? Should women who do not fit the stereotypical views of womanhood - say, butch women - be treated to abuse when they go to the toilet? Or are they not 'women' in your eyes?
And I'd argue that the rights of *no* group should be 'paramount'. Rights are often a balance between competing groups, as rights for one group often impinge (in minor or major ways) on other groups. And we certainly should not have the case where there is a tyranny of the majority: where the 'rights' of a larger group are seen as more critical than those of a minor group, simply because there are more of them. You may note that's been tried in the past; rarely to good consequence.
Then I'm bigoted and proud. What kind of balance is there when the 0.001% are trumping the 99.9%? I'm a proud gay man and I support tolerance for all . I don't support tyranny of the minority. Name calling people for using their common sense is water off this s duck's back. back.
You appear to support tolerance for all - as long as they're not trans...
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
If they wanted to make bank they could an 'Ignore Poster' feature as a 5 quid/month option. A premium tier at a tenner a month that lets you ignore "The Alky from The Spectator" is probably commercially supportable.
Quite a few would pay to ignore the filth you post.
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
If you want to be taxing ‘wealth’ rather than ‘income’, then property taxes need to rise significantly.
Given the current shape of the British economy, having much higher property taxes, especially at the top end, has to be part of the answer. And I'm confident that would leave me worse off.
Chances of that happening under a government with the electoral coalition of the current government: approximately zero.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
I don’t know how the numbers actually stack up, but recent reporting would suggest that a woman is more likely to be assaulted by a police officer than by a trans individual.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line...
I don’t think people have a problem with the sentences as such. It’s when somebody comments that they’ll be out after serving 50% of that sentence if they’ve been well-behaved that It grates.
On topic, I think there are too many variables in Scottish politics to be able to see where this one goes:
1. Boundary changes make for some interesting new constituencies. Using mine as an example, I go from being forced to vote SNP Corruption Party to remove Tory Corruption Party from Banff and Buchan, to actually being able to campaign and vote for the LDs as hopefully competitive in the new Aberdeenshire Central seat. 2. So who needs to be tactically voted for is still rooted in the existing constituencies. Until the new ones are implemented and get their head around them, its hard to tell how people will vote to remove x. They don't even know who x is yet! 3. The piling up of party problems. The SNP are corrupt and lead a poor government. The Tories are massively corrupt and lead a terrible government. Tactically voting for either of these two would be madness. Think about it (as I did), realise it's a step too far, then think again. 4. The antipathy of tribal voters. With the SNP sinking fast the threat of independence once again feels way off. So the threat to the union isn't really there. So unionists having to vote for the unpalatable to avoid the unthinkable isn't needed. Lets put it this way, I think it would be a very big assumption for ScotCons to think Labour voters will tactically vote Tory because the SNP are incompetent and corrupt...
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
You are unhappy with the posters unfairly portraying Sunak as the nonce's friend, and quite right too. Nonetheless you have been keen for some months now to promote the Starmer-Savile link in your posts. If one slur is unacceptable, so is the other.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
It is curious how Tories keep telling us, at length, how Labour have made a mistake, repeatedly citing a Labour poster. Reminds me of how Labour operated in 2009-2010.
My interpretation of what Labour are doing now is that they are using the local elections to test messages and approaches ahead on the 24/25 general election. They are testing their range and seeing what cuts through and what doesn’t. And specifically what winds up their opponents and what reaches those hard to reach red wall voters.
Condemnation of labour's descent into gutter politics is being led by the guardian and many in Labour who are dismayed they have lost the moral ground overnight and in a manner Braverman would be proud
Trying to portray Sunak as a friend of paedophiles is revolting and straight out of the Alastair Campbell playbook
There you go again, it is straight out of the Tory playbook, or have you forgotten all those Tory MPs cheering Boris Johnson smearing Starmer over Savile?
Or Braverman's comments on grooming gangs last week?
I never endorsed Johnson comments nor Braverman's but you seem to want to defend the poster suggesting Sunak is a friend of paedophiles rather than condemn it
This is Labour at war with itself over these gutter posters and you are just trying to deflect from this controversy
I’m not defending the posters and I’ve said they are a mistake but I’m pointing your hypocrisy and that of the Tory Party.
Not mine when I did not endorse Johnson or Braverman's comments
I support Sunak as I see him as a decent and competent PM and will defend him accordingly
Sunak never answers a question at PMQs and attacks Starmer on a very personal level each week. Sunak's claims are often on the lines of Starmer is a friend of... (pick a stereotyped negative of your choice). These posters are blunt, unpleasant and a mistake, and Starmer may have descended to the gutter, but make no mistake, Sunak was already there.
You latch onto any anti-Starmer bandwagon you can find. Now who was the poster who promoted Partygate, above and beyond?
As I understand from your previous posts you have condemned these posters yourself have you not
Furthermore, why should I give Starmer and labour a free pass when I do not support them
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
If that’s not a belated April Fool, that’s stupidity. If Campbell’s behind this, he’s losing his touch.
This is the second or third time I've seen somebody suggest Campbell is advising Labour on PR/strategy. He's not even a member of the party right now, and he's been happy to critique the party's approach in public on his podcast, so it just doesn't seem likely to me that he's on the Labour PR team.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
They could use the disabled toilet, which is unisex, and this should be permitted officially.
On topic, I think there are too many variables in Scottish politics to be able to see where this one goes:
1. Boundary changes make for some interesting new constituencies. Using mine as an example, I go from being forced to vote SNP Corruption Party to remove Tory Corruption Party from Banff and Buchan, to actually being able to campaign and vote for the LDs as hopefully competitive in the new Aberdeenshire Central seat. 2. So who needs to be tactically voted for is still rooted in the existing constituencies. Until the new ones are implemented and get their head around them, its hard to tell how people will vote to remove x. They don't even know who x is yet! 3. The piling up of party problems. The SNP are corrupt and lead a poor government. The Tories are massively corrupt and lead a terrible government. Tactically voting for either of these two would be madness. Think about it (as I did), realise it's a step too far, then think again. 4. The antipathy of tribal voters. With the SNP sinking fast the threat of independence once again feels way off. So the threat to the union isn't really there. So unionists having to vote for the unpalatable to avoid the unthinkable isn't needed. Lets put it this way, I think it would be a very big assumption for ScotCons to think Labour voters will tactically vote Tory because the SNP are incompetent and corrupt...
Mm, interesting to see your perspective. And remember that Labour are a bunch of Brexiters - as they were under Mr Corbyn and explicitly are under SKS. That hasn't been forgotten.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
If you want to be taxing ‘wealth’ rather than ‘income’, then property taxes need to rise significantly.
Council Tax is an atrociously poor satire of a property tax.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
They do and some are
Also - consider the same analysis, inverted:
"For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Starmer _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Tory Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?"
It's difficult not to accept that as entirely true for the last year or two (I forget when the smears began, here as in the HoC).
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
Bully for you many don't.
Gender free toilets are OK in the workplace, but in pubs and bars, not so great. My wife is a very petite 5 feet tall thing of beauty (I'm seriously punching above my weight) and she has been chatted up a few times by half cut blokes in gender free toilets on nights out. There are certain pubs she won't go in now. It's not trans women she's scared of, it's pissed up young lads after a hot older woman!
At least it’s on the economy, but it is novel to see Labour argue that the better off shouldn’t pay more or implicitly support council service cuts.
The only reasons councils are going bankrupt is that their central government funding has been reduced over time to zero. Restore direct funding for things like adult social care and council taxes can be reduced.
If you want to be taxing ‘wealth’ rather than ‘income’, then property taxes need to rise significantly.
Given the current shape of the British economy, having much higher property taxes, especially at the top end, has to be part of the answer. And I'm confident that would leave me worse off.
Chances of that happening under a government with the electoral coalition of the current government: approximately zero.
Council tax = number of bedrooms X postcode value index X type of housing index X council set rate
Average postcode value index is compared to national average and any surplus is redistributed accordingly.
"Type" index is important to incentivise living in high density housing.
According to the BBC, China has just warned Taiwan that independence and peace are mutually exclusive.
Time to start decoupling our economies from China, which will be a painful process.
Macron’s attempt at diplomacy went well then!
More seriously, and irrespective of their internal politics, the US (and Japan) are going to start to look to China as the enemy, which means that Europe will need to take up the slack of keeping Russia in check.
It also means, as you suggest, that manufacturing and supply chains are going to undergo a lot of change in the next few years.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
Bully for you many don't.
Gender free toilets are OK in the workplace, but in pubs and bars, not so great. My wife is a very petite 5 feet tall thing of beauty (I'm seriously punching above my weight) and she has been chatted up a few times by half cut blokes in gender free toilets on nights out. There are certain pubs she won't go in now. It's not trans women she's scared of, it's pissed up young lads after a hot older woman!
I thin k there's a difference between the unitary kind with a single room - one loo with handbasin - and the one where there is a gender free wash-hands area and several WCs. The latter is more problematical and unnerving the first time even for a harmless elderlyu male. .
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
They do and some are
"You can fool some of the people all of the time - and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
They do and some are
Also - consider the same analysis, inverted:
"For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Starmer _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Tory Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?"
It's difficult not to accept that as entirely true for the last year or two (I forget when the smears began, here as in the HoC).
Yes, that's completely fair, and I felt the same thing about the "Starmer supported Saville" nonsense. It reeks of desperation whichever side does it. I could probably be persuaded to vote for any of the main parties in England if I felt as though the grown ups were in charge, but it's not clear that that applies right now.
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
@BNHWalker New post: Here's the thing with "trans issues" in the UK
Most voters have an opinion, but the vast majority will readily admit to not paying it much attention. As a 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲, it's next-to-nonexistent. 🧵
sotn.newstatesman.com Do voters care about trans rights?
The argument seems to be that people objecting to, say, the recent legislation in Scotland, are being horribly devisive, but also that they are obsessed and no one cares about it (so how is it devisive?).
I dont think it's very complicated. Lots of people likely agree with the pushback, so there's nothing stupid about raising it as a means to score political points. But if that's the only or best string to their bow its not going to change the result, because there are bigger factors at play. So it does motivate, but not enough on it's own.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
You are unhappy with the posters unfairly portraying Sunak as the nonce's friend, and quite right too. Nonetheless you have been keen for some months now to promote the Starmer-Savile link in your posts. If one slur is unacceptable, so is the other.
I merely point out the political risk to Labour. Starmer is unloved and still largely unknown. He is very exposed to the potential voters - especially in Red Wall seats - being at the very least underwhelmed and quite possibly antagonised when they start paying attention to the liberal lefty lawyer asking to be their PM.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
Bully for you many don't.
Gender free toilets are OK in the workplace, but in pubs and bars, not so great. My wife is a very petite 5 feet tall thing of beauty (I'm seriously punching above my weight) and she has been chatted up a few times by half cut blokes in gender free toilets on nights out. There are certain pubs she won't go in now. It's not trans women she's scared of, it's pissed up young lads after a hot older woman!
I thin k there's a difference between the unitary kind with a single room - one loo with handbasin - and the one where there is a gender free wash-hands area and several WCs. The latter is more problematical and unnerving the first time even for a harmless elderlyu male. .
The type you mention with the washbasin in the stall are the way to go. To be honest it’s generally probably a much nicer experience for everyone involved - this is where stamping inclusive language all over these sorts of things is actually counterproductive “oh they’re doing it to appease minority Y” whereas actually it’s making it a nicer environment for everyone.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
Funnily enough I have been thinking the same thing over the last few days as it isn't like him not to have posted and went and had a look and he hasn't posted since 3/4. I did that before seeing your post so clearly more than one of us is thinking alike.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
Funnily enough I have been thinking the same thing over the last few days as it isn't like him not to have posted and went and had a look and he hasn't posted since 3/4. I did that before seeing your post so clearly more than one of us is thinking alike.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
If it were me, I’d highlight closed courts, delays to cases, and use especially heart-rending examples. That would resonate.
I wouldn’t go for Sunak is either a paedo or a friend of paedos. That’s just idiotic.
It’s not the adverts being offensive that interests me. It’s their being inept that’s the issue.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
The second poster highlights the issue well. People on here say: "We don't want to remove rights from trans people!"; yet anyone agreeing with the second poster is calling exactly for rights to be removed from trans people.
Trans people have always existed. Trans people will have been using the toilets of their new gender for as long as there have been gendered toilets.
It is also patently unpoliceable, and the effects of it on women who do not exhibit 'womanly' traits - or who do not fir the bigoted views of bigots on what a woman should look like - might be severe.
The rights of biological women should be paramount. Nothing bigoted in that.
But it is interesting to me that the position of the pro-woman movement on this is more draconian than mine would be - an unusual thing for me. Personally, I'd make gender reassignment only legal with a medical diagnosis, and after surgery, but following that legal and physical change, I think it's right that those people have the legal status of women and can use women's toilets etc. The risk to women is virtually nil.
Under current rules, people have to live as their new gender for 2 years in order to get a GRC. How are they supposed to do that without using a toilet?
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Why do we need a new offence for this? We have lots already.
I don't think that 'acting inappropriately in a toilet or changing room' should be an offence. You would have to define 'acting inappropriately'. There are too many vague and poorly drafted offences already, we need to stop adding to them.
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
Bully for you many don't.
Gender free toilets are OK in the workplace, but in pubs and bars, not so great. My wife is a very petite 5 feet tall thing of beauty (I'm seriously punching above my weight) and she has been chatted up a few times by half cut blokes in gender free toilets on nights out. There are certain pubs she won't go in now. It's not trans women she's scared of, it's pissed up young lads after a hot older woman!
I thin k there's a difference between the unitary kind with a single room - one loo with handbasin - and the one where there is a gender free wash-hands area and several WCs. The latter is more problematical and unnerving the first time even for a harmless elderlyu male. .
The type you mention with the washbasin in the stall are the way to go. To be honest it’s generally probably a much nicer experience for everyone involved - this is where stamping inclusive language all over these sorts of things is actually counterproductive “oh they’re doing it to appease minority Y” whereas actually it’s making it a nicer environment for everyone.
The problems with that layout, are that you get many fewer stalls of this type in the same space, and that the additional space in each stall, in the environment of a busy pub, leads to other unwanted behaviours such as sex and drugs.
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
I’m not sure you have the means to close that deal Al…
But I do think there is a material difference in the morality/justification for these ads after the Savile nonsense rather than before. I still don’t like them, and not sure they will work, but can see why Labour thought them necessary.
After all, as Rochdale and you point out, they do bring the agenda onto the truth the the Tories have gutted the criminal justice system, which is a conversation that badly needs to be had.
Question. Is "aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville" really the weapon that PB Tories think it is when the so what is "so vote Tory because we're prosecuting or locking up *anyone* especially the scrotes making your lives a misery now".
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"aah, Starmer was DPP and he let off Saville"
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
Ah, I see the official Tory attack line is changing. It sure wasn't like that before.
I am not a member of the conservative party and my comments are my own but I do support Sunak and expect Starmer will find him a difficult opponent in the next GE campaign
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
Funnily enough I have been thinking the same thing over the last few days as it isn't like him not to have posted and went and had a look and he hasn't posted since 3/4. I did that before seeing your post so clearly more than one of us is thinking alike.
Agree, I hope he is ok.
Same here. Hope he’s well
Likewise. Perhaps just busy with Easter / on holiday etc.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Interesting thread with an alternate take on Macron’s comments in China. Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
If it were me, I’d highlight closed courts, delays to cases, and use especially heart-rending examples. That would resonate.
I wouldn’t go for Sunak is either a paedo or a friend of paedos. That’s just idiotic.
It’s not the adverts being offensive that interests me. It’s their being inept that’s the issue.
Agreed, though it’s hard to create the space for those heart-rending stories. The ads have set the agenda, unfortunately ( just as the Savile claims did). A heart-rending story or two wouldn’t have got an article in the Daily Mail or similar.
My problem with the poster is that it insults my intelligence. For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Sunak _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Labour Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
The Labour posters are a bit like the £350m on the side of the Brexit bus. Everyone who didn't like the bus moaning about the ethics and accuracy, whilst average voter in the Labour posters case will just see that 4000+ nonces have got off prison on the Tories watch.
And there is the problem
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
The BBC is going into one of its regular self examining spasms about Musky Elon calling it government funded media on twitter. I see George Galloway is still sub titled ‘Russia state-affiliated media’ so the omens aren’t good for the hair transplanted one changing his mind.
You seem to be getting a tad wound up since The SNP became a laughing stock.
Without trying to white knight TUD, who doesn't need that, I can't say I've noticed a difference.
What unionists need to worry about is the SNP getting its act together. Salmond and Sturgeon were formidable operators who got complacent. Sure, the new leader seems sub optimal, but I think the SNP will regroup and come back stronger. The unionists won't be laughing then.
For those who disapprove of Labour's campaign, how would they suggest that Labour rebuts the Tory accusation that they are "soft on crime", which already exists and is an electorally powerful message? Would it be something like this:
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak. Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough. Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
If it were me, I’d highlight closed courts, delays to cases, and use especially heart-rending examples. That would resonate.
I wouldn’t go for Sunak is either a paedo or a friend of paedos. That’s just idiotic.
It’s not the adverts being offensive that interests me. It’s their being inept that’s the issue.
The tactic appears to have been to grab some attention with the more outrageous personal attacks, then bring out the more standard attacks which are a lot harder for the Tories to combat.
And that seems to have worked - how many 'the tories are bad at law and order/the economy' attacks get noticed? Here the secondary ones are picked up due to the outrage, and the Tories can only deflect by reminding people of the more unreasonable attacks, which just highlights a worse accusation.
It's pretty mucky behaviour but only neutrals and Labour can really criticise it given what the Tories put out.
An SNP MP has called for the party’s leadership race to be rerun because the timing of Peter Murrell’s arrest last week raised doubts about the “legitimacy” of Humza Yousaf’s win.
Angus MacNeil said that the detention of Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s husband and the former SNP chief executive, meant there were “clearly questions to answer” about the six-week leadership campaign which led to the narrow victory of Yousaf, the “continuity candidate”, over Kate Forbes.
It is alleged that Murrell, who quit his post last month after 20 years, personally intervened to shorten the duration of the contest after his wife’s resignation in mid-February as first minister and party leader.
You should check out SNP MSP James Dornan's reaction to the same story in the Daily Record on twitter where he brands Angus MacNeil the 'Eejit fae the Isles' in the latest example of SNP party unity collapsing...
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Most voters don't have a clue what the DPP does, Or did, whilst it was Starmer. They will now discover that he was responsible for prosecuting nonces. Or not. And for those that were prosecuted and found guilty, Starmer sat on the sentencing committee.
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
You are unhappy with the posters unfairly portraying Sunak as the nonce's friend, and quite right too. Nonetheless you have been keen for some months now to promote the Starmer-Savile link in your posts. If one slur is unacceptable, so is the other.
I merely point out the political risk to Labour. Starmer is unloved and still largely unknown. He is very exposed to the potential voters - especially in Red Wall seats - being at the very least underwhelmed and quite possibly antagonised when they start paying attention to the liberal lefty lawyer asking to be their PM.
Yes it was foolish, and best avoided, including for the reason you have cited. I am not sure the lefty- lawyer element would be too worrysome, but inviting the Conservative party and their media shills to go (unfairly) full-frontal Savile will. But they were going to do that anyway.
There are a lot of very hostile replies from small-l liberals in response to this tweet from Starmer. It might not filter through to the wider public but it does feel like there’s been a sea change following their ads targeting Sunak and people are less willing to give him a free pass for not being a Tory.
Two pictorial replies under that Tweet - one mocking the original, and the other attacking Sir Keir more directly.
Good morning
It was inevitable that the conservatives would counter labour's posters with a nasty battle looming
Labour have opened a can of worms
Its always offended me that Macdonalds serves breakfast util so late - Breakfast should only be available to those who can get their asses out of bed by 9 imho
Discriminatory against night workers and night owls!
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
Labour is to launch more “provocative and aggressive” adverts attacking Rishi Sunak this week by blaming him personally for crashing the economy and for soaring mortgage and council tax rates.
The party is doubling down on its controversial strategy of claiming the prime minister is responsible for prosecution and sentencing and will expand its remit to economic and health policies.
Further adverts by Labour this week, seen by The Times, will claim that Sunak thinks it is “acceptable” for council tax to rise above £2,000 and that he “thinks it’s right” that people are having to pay higher housing costs and mortgage rates.
The party believes it will be hard for Sunak to hit back because he will have to place the blame for economic chaos on Liz Truss, his predecessor. However, the strategy is seen as risky as it could backfire by exposing Labour’s lack of tax-and-spending policies.
Labour is also planning even more “controversial and disruptive” adverts this month that will return to the issue of crime, accusing Sunak of “effectively decriminalising rape”. They will be launched for “maximum impact” days before local elections on May 4.
There will be counter posters as politics descends into the gutter and Starmer/labour surrender the moral high ground
I’m not sure what I think of the Labour attack ads, but this does seem a little far fetched to me.
Tory attack dog: “We should make a poster attacking Labour before the May elections, just like we always do.”
Sunak: “Goodness no, we can’t do that!! Labour are so morally unimpeachable. I simply can’t countenance it!! ”
Both look at Starmer’s Twitter feed.
Sunak: “Sigh. I’m so disappointed in the state of British politics. Oh alright then. Unleash the hounds. Do your worst!”
One thing I’m slightly surprised about is SKS attaching himself directly to these ads, as you imply the usual formula is to have a bit of deniability while the pit bulls do the dirty work. I wonder if milquetoasty SKS has been tempted to try a bit of hard man of politics imagery.
Yep - that’s the mistake, IMO. The Tories have always used Guido and their media cheerleaders for these kinds of attacks so that they get deniability. That’s what made the Johnson Saville smear so notable.
The Tories attacked Starmer personally as a liberal lefty lawyer. I think he doesn’t mind one bit being attacked for being tough or aggressive on crime.
Only as DPP he wasnt....
Evidence? Did he fail to prosecute? Can't remember seeing that. He didn't set the punishment. He was DPP not the judge.
The DPP is a key member of the team that sets the sentencing guidelines. Which were last significantly updated when a Sir Keir Starmer KC held that position.
Stand corrected. Any evidence that he was weak though, as Squaresum suggests without evidence.
All those press conferences in front of cameras was all about self promotion.
Sorry, not following. What has that to do with what you said? What evidence is there re your assertion? Not saying there isn't evidence, but let's see it. Just coming out and saying he wasn't tough on crime when he was DPP without any evidence is just smearing him. I'm no fan of KS, but let's attack him on facts (eg lack of policies) not smears. Happy to concede if there is evidence.
Just saying it was all about planning his career.. then becoming MP to Leader. I feel sure if he had spent more on doing his job instead of promoting himself things might have been better. In any event the CPS isn't called the can't prosecute service for nothing and I don't think SKS did anything to make any difference. He was in office in 2003 iirc when the last Labour Govt set out the sentencing guidelines. Now there may be a case for these guidelines to be updated... by the Current Govt......
Starmer was DPP from Nov 2009 to Nov 2013, so served most of his term under the coalition government of 2010 to 2015.
You absolute arse! I've yet to watch the new season!!! My one TV show I was waiting to watch when it came on a platform I can access, and my anticipation shattered.😔😔
Apologies.
I'll let you off. It's only TV. I'll get over it👍
In my defence, given national media are happy with printing such spoilers, I thought it must be pretty common knowledge anyway. There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
Thank fuck I watched this episode at 6am or I would have exiled you to ConHome for spoiling my favourite show.
Comments
It doesn’t really matter that he’s disappointed me though. I’m probably a fairly atypical previous Tory voter who will give Labour a chance next time. And it will take a lot more than this to dissuade me from doing so, given the current state of the government. I probably don’t fit the profile of voter he’s trying to attract. But he didn’t need to play this card and the fact he has done so demeans him, in all honesty.
They’ve both gone into the gutter. That’s it. It’s cheap politics. I’m not saying it won’t necessarily work with certain voters, but I do think it’s a risky decision.
There should be a new offence on accessing toilets or changing rooms for indecent purposes to punish those who act inappropriately, applicable for all genders.
Starmer will of course know this. I guess it is a case of throwing a bit of red meat on banging up paedos to convey a wider policy agenda which involves properly funding the courts, which at base is the structural failing with the justice system.
The *Tories* started this fight. In the last weeks alone we have had Braverman both finger an entire ethnic group as being responsible (solely) for child abuse. And caught lying to the House with her demonisation of refugees as economic migrants.
Whipping up the ignorance and prejudices of parts of the electorate is an old Tory trick. They now have new "news" outlets available to normalise their worms (whither two Tory MPs interviewing a minister on GBeebies), and a coterie of 2019 mince MPs willing to do anything to
line their pocketssave their seats.There is something deeply unpleasant about the Starmer posters, and as others have pointed out a loose connection with reality. But when ministers lie to the house and openly spew racism is there another choice? It is painfully laughable to suggest that Labour have started this when the floor is awash with Tory worms spilling from all the cans they had already opened.
It’s not just mid-ranking true-crime books this issue affects. Some readers may remember when so distinguished a historian as Orlando Figes was caught out doing the same thing. He used a pseudonym to call books by rival historians Rachel Polonsky and Robert Service ‘hard to follow’ and ‘awful’, while gauchely praising one of his own as ‘a fascinating book…[that] leaves the reader awed, humbled, yet uplifted’. When he was called out on this, he first denied doing any such thing and tried to shut his critics down with threats of legal action. Then he tried, some will think ungallantly, to claim his wife had been responsible. Finally, he copped to the whole thing. No doubt he’s hoping that the literary and academic worlds have forgotten the affair, but prigs like me consider it an ineradicable stain on his reputation." (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-live-in-a-one-way-shame-culture/
I don't think you can ban people from entering a toilet of the other sex, or legislate to make women's toilets free from the risk of intrusion. It is totally futile. It is probably better to move to a system of gender neutral toilets. I have these at an office I work in and I think they are the best way forward.
You latch onto any anti-Starmer bandwagon you can find. Now who was the poster who promoted Partygate, above and beyond?
I do have concerns that Sunak and his government are so desperate to cut headline tax rates that they will be tempted to cut corners on things that only the state can do. Like law and order and child protection.
On topic, surely Ross expected to be rebuked. Proper Tories, as we are often reminded here, don’t vote for other parties. (Except Plaid Cymru.)
If you don't think there's a bit Red Wall perception problem coming down the line... Because they really love a liberal lefty lawyer. Getting them off their arses to vote for one is the challenge.
At the time, France was making noise about its commitment to and 8nterests in the other side of the globe.
Please tell me the percentage when the rights of a minority can 'trump' the majority? You say not 0.001%. How about 0.01%? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? 25%
Besides, it's not about 'trumping' rights. It's about compromises that allow people to muddle along together.
(In addition, trans people are much larger than 0.001%...)
Chances of that happening under a government with the electoral coalition of the current government: approximately zero.
Time to start decoupling our economies from China, which will be a painful process.
1. Boundary changes make for some interesting new constituencies. Using mine as an example, I go from being forced to vote SNP Corruption Party to remove Tory Corruption Party from Banff and Buchan, to actually being able to campaign and vote for the LDs as hopefully competitive in the new Aberdeenshire Central seat.
2. So who needs to be tactically voted for is still rooted in the existing constituencies. Until the new ones are implemented and get their head around them, its hard to tell how people will vote to remove x. They don't even know who x is yet!
3. The piling up of party problems. The SNP are corrupt and lead a poor government. The Tories are massively corrupt and lead a terrible government. Tactically voting for either of these two would be madness. Think about it (as I did), realise it's a step too far, then think again.
4. The antipathy of tribal voters. With the SNP sinking fast the threat of independence once again feels way off. So the threat to the union isn't really there. So unionists having to vote for the unpalatable to avoid the unthinkable isn't needed. Lets put it this way, I think it would be a very big assumption for ScotCons to think Labour voters will tactically vote Tory because the SNP are incompetent and corrupt...
Furthermore, why should I give Starmer and labour a free pass when I do not support them
The Tories have literally collapsed the criminal justice system. Police forces cut to the bone, with racist and abusive officers protected, a massive backlog in an overwhelmed and under-funded courts system.
Easy for well to do PB Tories to think this gives their party an advantage. But think about the challenge. It is a living hell for so many voters living in neighbourhoods being gradually overrun by crime. A government doing nothing about it, then telling them their *real* issue is small boats. And doing nothing about that either.
So the challenge is to get people to ignore their lived experience of today, and instead be focused on something which didn't directly affect them years ago.
"For all his faults, I don't believe for a moment that Starmer _really_ supports paedophiles, yet the Tory Party seems to be trying to trick me into believing it in a transparently facile way. Do they really view us as that stupid and easy to manipulate?"
It's difficult not to accept that as entirely true for the last year or two (I forget when the smears began, here as in the HoC).
Average postcode value index is compared to national average and any surplus is redistributed accordingly.
"Type" index is important to incentivise living in high density housing.
Council has full control over the rate they set.
More seriously, and irrespective of their internal politics, the US (and Japan) are going to start to look to China as the enemy, which means that Europe will need to take up the slack of keeping Russia in check.
It also means, as you suggest, that manufacturing and supply chains are going to undergo a lot of change in the next few years.
The point here is not about Saville but that Starmer was on the sentencing council that provided the guidelines to the judges and for most of the period the poster refers to
The role of the judges is independent from Ministers quite rightly
And this from 2012
https://www.theguardian.com/law/guardian-law-blog/2012/sep/28/rape-prosecutors-thornberry-starmer?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
President George W. Bush
Tories/Sunak: Labour's soft on crime. Weak, weak, weak.
Labour/Starmer: No we're not. Tough, tough, tough.
Tories/Sunak: Oh, sorry, our mistake. That's fine. Just for a minute we thought you were.
I'm not sure that would work. I'm not a fan of the early ads in this campaign, but it's all part of the methodical way in which Starmer/Labour are seeking to reduce Tory attack points. This week it's 'soft on crime', that's all.
Tell you what, if Sunak/Braverman stop claiming that Labour is soft on crime, criminals and sentencing, Labour will pull this campaign. Deal?
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2023-04-09/logan-roy-succession-dead-obituary
I dont think it's very complicated. Lots of people likely agree with the pushback, so there's nothing stupid about raising it as a means to score political points. But if that's the only or best string to their bow its not going to change the result, because there are bigger factors at play. So it does motivate, but not enough on it's own.
As an aside re Tory attack lines has anyone heard from @HYUFD recently
I hope he is ok
Agree, I hope he is ok.
Though being serious for a moment it's weird that surprising numbers can still be weirdly judgy about such a thing. I mean, if someone goes to bed 3 hours after another person of course they're likely to get up later, why wouldn't we, I mean they?
If it were me, I’d highlight closed courts, delays to cases, and use especially heart-rending examples. That would resonate.
I wouldn’t go for Sunak is either a paedo or a friend of paedos. That’s just idiotic.
It’s not the adverts being offensive that interests me. It’s their being inept that’s the issue.
But I do think there is a material difference in the morality/justification for these ads after the Savile nonsense rather than before. I still don’t like them, and not sure they will work, but can see why Labour thought them necessary.
After all, as Rochdale and you point out, they do bring the agenda onto the truth the the Tories have gutted the criminal justice system, which is a conversation that badly needs to be had.
Perhaps just busy with Easter / on holiday etc.
Such things have been known.
Having no knowledge myself of French diplomatic discourse, I’ve no idea how valid are its arguments,
So POLITICO has tried to pull a fast one on Macron's comments, as per usual.
Here's what the President of France *actually* said about America and China. As translated by me, a professional translator of 25+ years experience.
https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/1645239508613431298
As even those in the labour party concede this is a personal attack on Sunak indicting he is the friend of paedophiles which clearly is outrageous and the message is consequently lost
There’s usually something of a consensus around the avoidance of publishing spoilers.
And that seems to have worked - how many 'the tories are bad at law and order/the economy' attacks get noticed? Here the secondary ones are picked up due to the outrage, and the Tories can only deflect by reminding people of the more unreasonable attacks, which just highlights a worse accusation.
It's pretty mucky behaviour but only neutrals and Labour can really criticise it given what the Tories put out.