I think there is a strong possibility Starmer fails to obtain a majority in England and that the Conservatives and the LDs combined have more seats than Labour there even if Labour win most seats.
UK wide though I think Labour gains from the SNP plus Welsh Labour MPs should see him gain a narrow UK majority
I think Labour will get a pretty comfortable majority and am now betting accordingly.
I take absolutely zero pleasure in this but the writing is on the wall.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
Delivering Brexit was not 'a cult', it was what 17 million people and 52% of those who voted in 2016 (ie more than have ever voted Conservative or Labour since universal suffrage) voted for
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.
Anyone supporting the suggestions made in the Sun by Sunak, can I ask:
What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?
Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?
Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?
I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.
As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.
I don't even understand why it's a political issue. It never used to be.
A group of marginal and vulnerable people mostly minding their own business have been caught up in other people's culture wars.
Very regrettably.
I think too there clearly are a rising number of people, particularly youngsters, that identify as Trans. Quite why this is is unclear, but it may well be like the rising recognition of neurodivergence over the last few decades. Was it always there and under recognised previously, or a genuine rise due to factors as yet unknown?
It used to be calling a tomboy / going through “a phase”. Most grew up to be well adjusted adults and live as happy lives as anyone else.
Teenagers have a lot of hormones and it takes a while for the body to process them. I worry that in pathologising uncertainty we are storing up trouble for the future
I agree with your second para but it implies that teenagers should be allowed to experiment without committing irreversible acts. That would in turn imply that the parents should not be informed, not that they should, yes?
No, what it means is it both teenagers and parents should be able to access sensible dispassionate advice.
And good morning, one, and all!
Good morning, sir. Hmmm. Sensible dispassionate advice on this subject does seem to be lacking, with both sides arriving with axe-grinding machines in tow. @StillWaters' point about pathologising uncertainty was valid, but since the only alternative would be *not* pathologising uncertainty and the only way to do that would be to not interfere, that only leaves us with "leave things alone and see what happens". Which, come to think of it, may be the "sensible dispassionate advice" you seek...
Thank you; there is a difference between leaving alone, and seeing what happens and sensible, dispassionate advice, but it’s a fine line and one very likely to be overtrodden.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
No he would not. A sitting pm with his mind on the job is in a virtually impregnable position. You have to really work at it to get yourself borised or trussed.
For those who love subtle, character based films, Extraction 2 is out.
Strangely, rather than philosophical debates on the nature of truth and Quantum Mechanics at a dinner party, this sequel concentrates on Chris Hemsworth killing *everyone*. Non stop.
War is the pursuit of philosophy by other means.
Ultima ratio regum
Which leads up to the Greatest Hamlet adaption ever
The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.
I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
No he would not. A sitting pm with his mind on the job is in a virtually impregnable position. You have to really work at it to get yourself borised or trussed.
Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan, Eden, Chamberlain, Lloyd George all beg to differ.
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
It's probably sensible to concede: - some rules put in place were a good idea - some did more harm than good (were all the school closures worth it? is one of the biggest questions) - some were too draconian (not allowed to leave your home unless for specific exceptions - incredibly draconian and probably didn't do any good anyway) - some were just bonkers (can't buy easter eggs?) - some things would have been a good idea, but didn't happen (maybe advising people by the end of January 2020 not to go on foreign holidays would have slowed things down a lot for a relatively small sacrifice)
But it seems unlikely that the "lockdowns" were completely wrong, or completely right.
The government intervened with furlough when it forced businesses to close. There was no alternative - you can't stop someone earning money and not compensate.
With the energy crisis a lot of chickens came home to roost. Transitioning to green energy (a good thing) is not yet cheaper than fossil fuels (for the most part). And we have put ourselves in hoc to some unsavoury nations over the years. And that came back to bite us.
Conservative instinct is that people should be self sufficient - its not the states role to pay their bills. But this shock was so sudden and the prospect of millions potentially unable to pay to heat their homes, and possibly freezing and dying as a result, meant that something had to be done.
With mortgages - conservative instinct is that its up to the customer to manage their affairs. If the rates go up and the mortgage payment increases thats on those who borrowed the money. I have a fair amount of sympathy with that view. But not all those in trouble will be idiots who just overstretched and borrowed the maximum because they could. There will be difficulties for people. But should the government step in? Should mine and your tax money, or more government borrowing, be used for other peoples mortgages? I'm not sure.
Personally I wouldn't intervene with mortgage payments. Subsidising overly-expensive housing doesn't help anyone. Politically though this will be Bad News for the Tories as people like me with a big house and a fixed rate ending in the next 6 months or so are supposed to be Tory voters.
So what would I do? Nothing? But I want the Tories to be eviscerated at the election, so the howls of anger from people who have over-extended themselves will be helpful.
I don't even understand why it's a political issue. It never used to be.
A group of marginal and vulnerable people mostly minding their own business have been caught up in other people's culture wars.
Very regrettably.
I think too there clearly are a rising number of people, particularly youngsters, that identify as Trans. Quite why this is is unclear, but it may well be like the rising recognition of neurodivergence over the last few decades. Was it always there and under recognised previously, or a genuine rise due to factors as yet unknown?
I suspect societal changes. Changing your gender comes with huge challenges. I think people who do so are quite brave. But there does seem to be more acceptance in parts of society, particularly amongst younger people, and some businesses are now taking diversity seriously. An acceptance that Sunak etc are trying to roll back to suit their agenda.
There used to be someone posting on here who was transitioning. I think they were middle aged with grown up children and, remarkably, a Conservative supporter.
Left handedness used to be 2-3% of the population when it was beaten out of you at school; when that stopped it rose to 12% and then plateaued.
The number of lesbian and gay people was low when it could cost you your liberty, job and family. Now it is more accepted, it has increased year on year (especially amongst the young) and more people than ever identify as bi (if only because they accept their may be one or two people of the same gender they find attractive / would date) and most reasonable people no longer claim that LGB people are trying to recruit kids.
The main question around why is this growth primarily within those assigned female at birth, I would also argue, is due to societal factors - not of social contagion - but of bodily autonomy and economic equality. People assigned male at birth who wanted to transition in the past would have had more opportunity to be taken seriously and have the resources to fight for transition. People assigned female at birth wouldn't have - with claims of hysteria, with denial of bodily autonomy around divorce and abortion, etc. - it would seem even less likely that doctors or society would accept transition. Indeed, many of the historical cases of ftm transition involve upper class transmen who did have the resources and freedom to transition (the other major example being times of war when the need for women to do "men's work" and the need for soldiers allowed transmen to act in "manly" ways without societal pressure.) Even though the percentage increases are large, we are still talking about tiny populations.
With mortgages - conservative instinct is that its up to the customer to manage their affairs. If the rates go up and the mortgage payment increases thats on those who borrowed the money. I have a fair amount of sympathy with that view. But not all those in trouble will be idiots who just overstretched and borrowed the maximum because they could. There will be difficulties for people. But should the government step in? Should mine and your tax money, or more government borrowing, be used for other peoples mortgages? I'm not sure.
Also, we're at the 'something must be done' point. What actually can or should be done without throwing huge amounts of money to half the population is another point.
And why should rich house owners (with equity) be helped when renters are paying higher rents without any discount / protection.
The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.
I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”
My Grandad was in REME and spent the summer of 1944 in Normandy cutting armour off dead tanks to be affixed to not-dead tanks...
It's official This means 'resignation accpeted' and by-election number 3 for the @Conservatives -this time in Somerton and Frome.There is just about time to call it on the same day as two others - July 20th. @NadineDorries keeps @RishiSunak waiting, though
Meanwhile, in Selby and Ainsty, that new Tory candidate has her finger on the pulse:
“I know right now people want an MP who’ll only focus on improving our local communities across Selby and Ainsty – not on political point scoring in Westminster.
“That means I will work with Rishi Sunak and the government on our five clear priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy, reducing debt, cutting hospital waiting lists and stopping the boats.”
[snip]
Perhaps the Tory candidate could tell us just how many boats are sailing from Calais into Selby and/or Ainsty… and explain how stopping them will square with being an MP who’ll only focus on in improving local communities in the area.
Aren’t the Lib Dems the main challengers in S&A? There’s a party that actually will focus relentlessly on local issues during the campaign. The Tory is going to have a hard time facing that down if her approach is to acknowledge that local issues matter in one breath and then parrot inane sloganeering dreamed up by an overpaid Westminster strategist in the next breath.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
I suspect it would have been more like Truss than Boris..
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Actually that was me, although @kle4 may well have said it too.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.
The idea that Corbyn would have been worse at dealing is not only unprovable but also is just mad.
Corbyn, whilst still leader during the early stages of the pandemic, argued for all the things that the government ended up doing - he just argued for them a few weeks before hand. Also, just thinking about Corbyn's priorities, the focussing on workers (essentially most people in the country) over capital would have saved many more lives and potentially fewer issues long term. One of the big issues we are having at the moment with workforce capacity has to do with the number of people who retired (out of fear of covid) and now have long covid (which can be, and often is, debilitating).
The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.
I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”
Hmm. Who shall we get to adjudicate a tank discussion. One name suggests itself
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Though we don't operate in a vacuum, countries which didn't lockdown, like Sweden, emerged the other side of the pandemic just as we did too.
If we hadn't locked down and had instead had a voluntary furlough scheme rather than a mandatory one (as Sweden did, and we did post-lockdown) and let responsible people choose to act according to their preferred risk profile, then some more people would have died but our civil liberties would have been far less curtailed.
A thought about the 1 minute video of youngish Tories partying from the Mirror today. Partygate, along with other things, means Tories are toast for a few years. All this we knew.
But watching it a couple of times, I feel slightly differently, and rather feel for the characters in it. Of course they are all working for an outfit in the hands of a PM unfit for office. And young Tories are not popular. But for those of a certain age the Covid years were cruel about love, life and fun. There is something of poetry about the two not very brilliant dancers. Nothing in me wants to criticise them. Young people round here in the far north of England took their random chances too.
Probably my bad but it's the opposite feeling for me. They look a gruesome bunch. The sort you run a mile from.
The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.
I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”
My Grandad was in REME and spent the summer of 1944 in Normandy cutting armour off dead tanks to be affixed to not-dead tanks...
The Jumbo was a tidied up version of those field modifications…
Anyone supporting the suggestions made in the Sun by Sunak, can I ask:
What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?
Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?
Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?
I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.
As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.
WTAF? Perhaps Sunak thinks we should make all girls wear pretty dresses and have their hair in pigtails.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
In Bootle, everyone hates the Labour party and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.
The Conservatives are... what... the oldest party in the world? They never do as bad as you think they should and their opponents never as well as they hope.
1964 - After thirteen years and numerous scandals the Labour party manage a majority of 2. 1970 - Labour are going to win this..... oh they didn't. 1997 - John Major still managed a higher vote share than Michael Foot, Gordon Brown and wasn't far off Miliband's 2015 performance, or Corbyn's 2019. Only FPTP left them with 165 seats. 2015 - Hung parliament all the way. No way back for the Tories... oh wait, they won.
With the possible exception of 2017, the Conservatives always do better than expected.
The "Opinion polls are not to be trusted.. ever....
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
Delivering Brexit was not 'a cult', it was what 17 million people and 52% of those who voted in 2016 (ie more than have ever voted Conservative or Labour since universal suffrage) voted for
1931 would like to have a word.
Our current universal suffrage began with The Representation of the People Act 1969.
Meanwhile, in Selby and Ainsty, that new Tory candidate has her finger on the pulse:
“I know right now people want an MP who’ll only focus on improving our local communities across Selby and Ainsty – not on political point scoring in Westminster.
“That means I will work with Rishi Sunak and the government on our five clear priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy, reducing debt, cutting hospital waiting lists and stopping the boats.”
[snip]
Perhaps the Tory candidate could tell us just how many boats are sailing from Calais into Selby and/or Ainsty… and explain how stopping them will square with being an MP who’ll only focus on in improving local communities in the area.
Aren’t the Lib Dems the main challengers in S&A? There’s a party that actually will focus relentlessly on local issues during the campaign. The Tory is going to have a hard time facing that down if her approach is to acknowledge that local issues matter in one breath and then parrot inane sloganeering dreamed up by an overpaid Westminster strategist in the next breath.
I'd swear the Tories have a death wish. I know this is a high-profile byelection which means armies of "assistance" being sent up from London. But surely only the zealots think the agreed line will sell on any doorstep.
Anyone supporting the suggestions made in the Sun by Sunak, can I ask:
What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?
Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?
Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?
I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.
As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.
WTAF? Perhaps Sunak thinks we should make all girls wear pretty dresses and have their hair in pigtails.
Sunak's more likely to think poor girls should wear handmedown dresses than pretty ones.
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Yes. It's usual to wait a little longer than 3 years before rewriting history but not in this case, it would appear.
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Yes. It's usual to wait a little longer than 2 years before rewriting history but not in this case, it would appear.
I’ve seen someone go from proudly boasting about stopping a factory bring built to damning the government not supporting industry. In consecutive sentences.
Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war
Half witted Cretin opines.
There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.
I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.
This sort of inaccuracy really boils my piss. I mean, this is PB, where accuracy matters, and we should all insist on terminological exactitude.
It is not a 'cage of rocks.
It is a gabion.
I mean, if we cannot get this sort of thing right...
Being a bit a Grammar Fascine ?
That joke is really funny when you consider the word "Fascist" is derived from the word "Fasces", which (like "Fascine") also describes a bound bundle of wood.
Pause
My lecture next week is "The semiotic impact of your mum and why that gobbet of spittle is your swimming pool, that is" [12:00-12:20, Room 47 in the old Annexe]. Part of a series entitled "Overexplained and overextended jokes"
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Yes. It's usual to wait a little longer than 3 years before rewriting history but not in this case, it would appear.
Indeed.
The Government of Sweden quite rightly stood up for liberty at the time and said "judge us in 2 years time" - and they were right.
Now people want to rewrite history to say that Boris Johnson took the right action and that lockdown was the only option.
Anyone supporting the suggestions made in the Sun by Sunak, can I ask:
What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?
Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?
Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?
I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.
As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.
WTAF? Perhaps Sunak thinks we should make all girls wear pretty dresses and have their hair in pigtails.
Sunak's more likely to think poor girls should wear handmedown dresses than pretty ones.
Surely we can make better use of little girls than wasting their time sending them to school. Put them on a giant treadmill to generate electricity. That'll stop them all from wanting to be boys.
The government intervened with furlough when it forced businesses to close. There was no alternative - you can't stop someone earning money and not compensate.
With the energy crisis a lot of chickens came home to roost. Transitioning to green energy (a good thing) is not yet cheaper than fossil fuels (for the most part). And we have put ourselves in hoc to some unsavoury nations over the years. And that came back to bite us.
Conservative instinct is that people should be self sufficient - its not the states role to pay their bills. But this shock was so sudden and the prospect of millions potentially unable to pay to heat their homes, and possibly freezing and dying as a result, meant that something had to be done.
With mortgages - conservative instinct is that its up to the customer to manage their affairs. If the rates go up and the mortgage payment increases thats on those who borrowed the money. I have a fair amount of sympathy with that view. But not all those in trouble will be idiots who just overstretched and borrowed the maximum because they could. There will be difficulties for people. But should the government step in? Should mine and your tax money, or more government borrowing, be used for other peoples mortgages? I'm not sure.
Like the Bank of England bloke said, as a nation we need to accept that we are poorer. There's no nice way of doing that.
The energy bailouts of winter 2022/3 were the last gasp of pretending that the government could just chuck money at us all without side effects. It made for a more comfortable winter, presumably perked up the UK economy a bit (we avoided recession- yay!) and I suspect is feeding into the higher inflation we're seeing now (boo!).
I’d be very surprised if support isn’t forthcoming for mortgage holders. The multi-squillionaire, public school-educated, former financier with no working class friends Rishi Sunak has, time and time again, shown his hypersensitivity to being seen as out-of-touch with ‘ordinary people’ (for which, read middle-class homeowners rather than those most in need of support) and responded with interventionism. Got to protect those house prices, chap!
A thought about the 1 minute video of youngish Tories partying from the Mirror today. Partygate, along with other things, means Tories are toast for a few years. All this we knew.
But watching it a couple of times, I feel slightly differently, and rather feel for the characters in it. Of course they are all working for an outfit in the hands of a PM unfit for office. And young Tories are not popular. But for those of a certain age the Covid years were cruel about love, life and fun. There is something of poetry about the two not very brilliant dancers. Nothing in me wants to criticise them. Young people round here in the far north of England took their random chances too.
Probably my bad but it's the opposite feeling for me. They look a gruesome bunch. The sort you run a mile from.
I’m very reluctant to criticize the government on their actions during the pandemic . I think most of the public will give them the benefit of the doubt excluding partygate . I can’t honestly say Labour would have done a better job.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but all governments had to make snap decisions.
The issue around PPE could be one area and whether preparations for Brexit took up too much bandwidth might be an area of weakness for them but really I don’t see this enquiry effecting voters choice at the next GE.
I don't even understand why it's a political issue. It never used to be.
A group of marginal and vulnerable people mostly minding their own business have been caught up in other people's culture wars.
Very regrettably.
I think too there clearly are a rising number of people, particularly youngsters, that identify as Trans. Quite why this is is unclear, but it may well be like the rising recognition of neurodivergence over the last few decades. Was it always there and under recognised previously, or a genuine rise due to factors as yet unknown?
I suspect societal changes. Changing your gender comes with huge challenges. I think people who do so are quite brave. But there does seem to be more acceptance in parts of society, particularly amongst younger people, and some businesses are now taking diversity seriously. An acceptance that Sunak etc are trying to roll back to suit their agenda.
There used to be someone posting on here who was transitioning. I think they were middle aged with grown up children and, remarkably, a Conservative supporter.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.
I don't think that's true. That's just an example of familiarity bias.
You can bet your bottom dollar that had Corbyn been in office, failing to act on security service warnings allowing a terrorist act, hung Ukraine out to dry or done some mad anti-vac/unscientific based response to Covid you'd have your statement precisely the other way round, because it'd have happened.
I think there is a strong possibility Starmer fails to obtain a majority in England and that the Conservatives and the LDs combined have more seats than Labour there even if Labour win most seats.
UK wide though I think Labour gains from the SNP plus Welsh Labour MPs should see him gain a narrow UK majority
I think there is a strong possibility Starmer fails to obtain a majority in England and that the Conservatives and the LDs combined have more seats than Labour there even if Labour win most seats.
UK wide though I think Labour gains from the SNP plus Welsh Labour MPs should see him gain a narrow UK majority
If you think the LibDems are likely to go into any sort of coalition or arrangement, with the Conservatives in the foreseeable future, then, in the praise, beloved of so many here, I have a bridge to sell you!
No but on certain issues like opposing Starmer's building on the greenbelt plans then the LDs and Tory MPs (especially in the Home Counties) would be alliance as their NIMBY voters would demand in opposing Starmer's development plans
Have read the linked guidance from the Sun. Hopefully, that's just the Sun's spin on it and the official stuff will be more nuanced. But if that is anywhere near the policy that will be imposed, then I'll find another job. I won't be alone. My whole career has been about keeping children safe. I will not be outing them to potentially violent parents for Tory culture war comfort. Good luck filling the teacher vacancies.
If a kid is exhibiting mental health issues it is your duty to alert the parents
Should you alert a parent if their child is gay?
Should you alert the parents if you know the issue is connected to the parents?
Why would being gay be an "issue" and why could it be connected to teh parents.
The question is not whether being gay is an issue, the question is whether the parents believe being gay is an issue and how they would then treat the child.
Surely if it is obvious at school then it would be obvious at home or am I being naive.
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Actually that was me, although @kle4 may well have said it too.
I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.
I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.
I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...
Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.
When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.
In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.
Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.
But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.
Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.
Yes. It's usual to wait a little longer than 3 years before rewriting history but not in this case, it would appear.
Indeed.
The Government of Sweden quite rightly stood up for liberty at the time and said "judge us in 2 years time" - and they were right.
Now people want to rewrite history to say that Boris Johnson took the right action and that lockdown was the only option.
I meant the opposite of course. People now pretending that enforced distancing - sometimes called 'lockdown' - was not necessary to avert a far worse outcome than the one we got.
Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.
The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.
Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.
Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!
As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.
It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.
It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.
You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.
That's all true.
But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.
Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.
The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.
"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.
If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.
Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic
Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.
I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.
I don't think that's true. That's just an example of familiarity bias.
You can bet your bottom dollar that had Corbyn been in office, failing to act on security service warnings allowing a terrorist act, hung Ukraine out to dry or done some mad anti-vac/unscientific based response to Covid you'd have your statement precisely the other way round, because it'd have happened.
But it didn't happen, whereas 'Boris' did, so for damage done we're talking actual vs hypothetical. The first is a largely objective fact, the second is mainly subjective opinion, which is far more subject to bias.
Comments
I take absolutely zero pleasure in this but the writing is on the wall.
What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?
Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?
Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?
I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.
As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.
[Charles Dance, into the uncaring darkness] "Hello! I just shot a man and I'm not sorry!"
The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.
I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”
- some rules put in place were a good idea
- some did more harm than good (were all the school closures worth it? is one of the biggest questions)
- some were too draconian (not allowed to leave your home unless for specific exceptions - incredibly draconian and probably didn't do any good anyway)
- some were just bonkers (can't buy easter eggs?)
- some things would have been a good idea, but didn't happen (maybe advising people by the end of January 2020 not to go on foreign holidays would have slowed things down a lot for a relatively small sacrifice)
But it seems unlikely that the "lockdowns" were completely wrong, or completely right.
So what would I do? Nothing? But I want the Tories to be eviscerated at the election, so the howls of anger from people who have over-extended themselves will be helpful.
The number of lesbian and gay people was low when it could cost you your liberty, job and family. Now it is more accepted, it has increased year on year (especially amongst the young) and more people than ever identify as bi (if only because they accept their may be one or two people of the same gender they find attractive / would date) and most reasonable people no longer claim that LGB people are trying to recruit kids.
The main question around why is this growth primarily within those assigned female at birth, I would also argue, is due to societal factors - not of social contagion - but of bodily autonomy and economic equality. People assigned male at birth who wanted to transition in the past would have had more opportunity to be taken seriously and have the resources to fight for transition. People assigned female at birth wouldn't have - with claims of hysteria, with denial of bodily autonomy around divorce and abortion, etc. - it would seem even less likely that doctors or society would accept transition. Indeed, many of the historical cases of ftm transition involve upper class transmen who did have the resources and freedom to transition (the other major example being times of war when the need for women to do "men's work" and the need for soldiers allowed transmen to act in "manly" ways without societal pressure.) Even though the percentage increases are large, we are still talking about tiny populations.
It's official This means 'resignation accpeted' and by-election number 3 for the @Conservatives -this time in Somerton and Frome.There is just about time to call it on the same day as two others - July 20th. @NadineDorries keeps @RishiSunak waiting, though
Aren’t the Lib Dems the main challengers in S&A? There’s a party that actually will focus relentlessly on local issues during the campaign. The Tory is going to have a hard time facing that down if her approach is to acknowledge that local issues matter in one breath and then parrot inane sloganeering dreamed up by an overpaid Westminster strategist in the next breath.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2919587#Comment_2919587
Corbyn, whilst still leader during the early stages of the pandemic, argued for all the things that the government ended up doing - he just argued for them a few weeks before hand. Also, just thinking about Corbyn's priorities, the focussing on workers (essentially most people in the country) over capital would have saved many more lives and potentially fewer issues long term. One of the big issues we are having at the moment with workforce capacity has to do with the number of people who retired (out of fear of covid) and now have long covid (which can be, and often is, debilitating).
The Chieftain on the Assault Tank M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman, the ultimate up-armored WW2-era Sherman
If we hadn't locked down and had instead had a voluntary furlough scheme rather than a mandatory one (as Sweden did, and we did post-lockdown) and let responsible people choose to act according to their preferred risk profile, then some more people would have died but our civil liberties would have been far less curtailed.
It is not a 'cage of rocks.
It is a gabion.
I mean, if we cannot get this sort of thing right...
Pause
My lecture next week is "The semiotic impact of your mum and why that gobbet of spittle is your swimming pool, that is" [12:00-12:20, Room 47 in the old Annexe]. Part of a series entitled "Overexplained and overextended jokes"
The Government of Sweden quite rightly stood up for liberty at the time and said "judge us in 2 years time" - and they were right.
Now people want to rewrite history to say that Boris Johnson took the right action and that lockdown was the only option.
failed to resign its seat and is in a prolonged sulk about not getting an undeserved peerage instead.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but all governments had to make snap decisions.
The issue around PPE could be one area and whether preparations for Brexit took up too much bandwidth might be an area of weakness for them but really I don’t see this enquiry effecting voters choice at the next GE.
You can bet your bottom dollar that had Corbyn been in office, failing to act on security service warnings allowing a terrorist act, hung Ukraine out to dry or done some mad anti-vac/unscientific based response to Covid you'd have your statement precisely the other way round, because it'd have happened.