On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
The Argentinians are a very rum bunch, Italians masquerading as Spanish.
Nice, but can you stay overnight and feed the little blighters while having coffee on the patio? They're probably AI animatronic robots down in that there London anyway.
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
We need somewhere closer to the equator, it’s better for the rocket launches.
Britain also has St. Helena and Ascension - though I'm not sure there is anywhere flat enough for rocket launches on those two!
You don’t need that much space. A bigger issue is ease of access. It took years to develop the facilities for Ariane. And it took a fair old upgrade to chunks of the local infrastructure and economy.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
I once commuted by bike.
Trouble was, when I moved to a job a bit further off the longer distance left me two tyred.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
That doesn't stop you arguing for your own convictions, bag of meat or not.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
The Argentinians are a very rum bunch, Italians masquerading as Spanish.
Apart from the Welsh.
And the Nazis (in Patagonia - although maybe they're more in Chile?)
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
We need somewhere closer to the equator, it’s better for the rocket launches.
Britain also has St. Helena and Ascension - though I'm not sure there is anywhere flat enough for rocket launches on those two!
You don’t need that much space. A bigger issue is ease of access. It took years to develop the facilities for Ariane. And it took a fair old upgrade to chunks of the local infrastructure and economy.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
That doesn't stop you arguing for your own convictions, bag of meat or not.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
I once commuted by bike.
Trouble was, when I moved to a job a bit further off the longer distance left me two tyred.
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
It won't net a lot of votes, because it can't be done (if it could be done, in a way that tories will tolerate and the rest won't, it would indeed sweep them back to power.) Even if Rishi gets it past the Supreme Court it will result in the Rwandaization of 15 people at a cost of $1m+ per head.
Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
Watching him on Newsnight last night was extraordinary. It was as though this nasty little social climber had finally been found out. Even his chair looked too small. "I've been with the bank for 42 years!". 'Yes Mr Farage but reading through the full report it appears you no longer met their financial requirements'. Said their banking expert who looked like the Head Teacher in 'Matilda'
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
The BBC at its best!
Have justed watched it. She sat there very calmly as he blustered, stated and then restated the report concluding that he wasn't rich enough. And then when he tried to say "should banks be allowed to do this" pointed out very calmly that a private bank is a wholly different endeavour to an ordinary bank.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
I once commuted by bike.
Trouble was, when I moved to a job a bit further off the longer distance left me two tyred.
Too big a Trek for me (a pun requiring Specialized knowledge to decode).
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
That doesn't stop you arguing for your own convictions, bag of meat or not.
No exact equivalent for Jezza to Kid Starvers Favorability rating but on this YG measure the next London mayor has a better dislike score than Starver and a better net rating than Sir Kid Starver as well as on the same measure being more popular
Have you and HYUFD ever been seen together in the same room? Both have got a fixation on opinion polls over the observable political reality, both with an absolute zealotry that your tribe should be the only tribe.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
I once commuted by bike.
Trouble was, when I moved to a job a bit further off the longer distance left me two tyred.
Too big a Trek for me (a pun requiring Specialized knowledge to decode).
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
Twistedfirestopper3 says "Hold my pint" I'm 57, retired, bring home just over 1500 quid a month in pension. Mrs Twisted packed in work a week after I retired and gets nowt until she draws her pension from her school in a few months time. We're doing fine.
As usual Andrew Teale has produced his historic background to the various by-elections today. I think that the historic parliamentary constituence name Barkston Ash should have been retained.
As well as the three parliamentaries we have three local byelections: Llanfarian Ceredigion council Lib Dem defence, Nunnery Worcester Council Labour defence and St Margaret and South Marston Swindon Council Labour defence.
Always worth remembering that outside of his weirdo fanbase he is wildly unpopular with the general public who by and large cannot stand him. Yet the BBC is in thrall to him and has been for years. He is not an elected politician, nor a party leader - this Coutts nonsense is just the latest chapter in his decades-long grift.
Watching him on Newsnight last night was extraordinary. It was as though this nasty little social climber had finally been found out. Even his chair looked too small. "I've been with the bank for 42 years!". 'Yes Mr Farage but reading through the full report it appears you no longer met their financial requirements'. Said their banking expert who looked like the Head Teacher in 'Matilda'
He went a shade of puce like a shrivalled schoolboy who had just been uncovered cheating. "....But it was POLITICAL' he bleated as we watched him visibly wither in his chair
The BBC at its best!
Have justed watched it. She sat there very calmly as he blustered, stated and then restated the report concluding that he wasn't rich enough. And then when he tried to say "should banks be allowed to do this" pointed out very calmly that a private bank is a wholly different endeavour to an ordinary bank.
Looking at Coutts website you only need to invest £1m with them to be eligible. I would have thought at his age and after his career he would have that, if you are allowed to count SIPPs.
LOL at the Coutts enquiry form ,where it would usually ask about your job it says NAME OF THE COMPANY YOU OWN OR WORK FOR.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
Why are these strikes happening? Very simple: 1. Long term erosion of their pay and benefits before the recent inflation 2. Very clear that their pay is going backwards because of inflation 3. They have a good union 4. The employers are literally banned from negotiating by a government who thinks they are facing down Arthur Scargill.
I watched PMQs yesterday. Sunak using the strikes as a political stick to beat Labour with. Why on earth would he want them to settle and thus remove his political stick?
I would be surprised if the Tories lose all three by-elections. Labour's performance in by-elections has been lacklustre for many decades under many different leaders.
However, the mood music around the Tories is so poor now that holding any of the seats would be a major morale boost for Team Sunak. They will start to believe that they can pull off an incredible escape and remain in government after the next general election.
I would be surprised if the Tories lose all three by-elections. Labour's performance in by-elections has been lacklustre for many decades under many different leaders.
However, the mood music around the Tories is so poor now that holding any of the seats would be a major morale boost for Team Sunak. They will start to believe that they can pull off an incredible escape and remain in government after the next general election.
I'll be surprised if they retain any of the three.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
If you keep saying that, some here might call you a pal of Putin who should get back to Russia.
I don't recall Zelensky promising new and oh so genuine status referendums in any of the territories.
Talking of Russia, Putin's PR seems to have been all over the place since the mutiny:
* Prigozhin's going to Belarus * We haven't got the means to track him even if he's in Russia * I met him * Wagner doesn't exist * Wagner is really commanded by someone who isn't Prigozhin
Prigozhin's has been all over the place too:
* Soon there'll be another Russian president * No, no, we always respected our president * Now I'll whip the Belarusian armed forces into shape and make them into the world's second army * And we'll sort out Mali and the Central African Republic too
I wondered who Putin meant by that last statement, that Wagner had a "real" commander who wasn't Prigozhin - and there's also the question of whether the unnamed commander attended the Moscow meeting - but presumably it's Dmitry Utkin, call sign "Wagner", the alleged Rodnover. Cf. Odinism. Think of the ideology as essentially Razi or Slazi. Utkin reappeared recently after a long period of obscurity.
One of the people whose public comments I follow is Ramzan Kadyrov. He's a complete scumbag and ultra-intelligent with it - a scary combination.
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
Two basic problems: 1. All the polls show very clearly that people's jobs and their household finances rate very much higher than immigration 2. The government can't "STOP THE BOATS". So even for tattooed voter the only thing they are going to see is the government giving it large but doing little. We don't need to worry about the courts or "EU human rights" - the government can't get it that far along for them to be relevant.
"Bank chief [of natwest therefore Coutts] Dame Alison sat next to BBC journalist [at dinner] night before he tweeted claim about Nigel Farage BBC business editor Simon Jack posted the next day that the ex-Ukip leader's bank account had been closed for commercial reasons"
No exact equivalent for Jezza to Kid Starvers Favorability rating but on this YG measure the next London mayor has a better dislike score than Starver and a better net rating than Sir Kid Starver as well as on the same measure being more popular
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
Two basic problems: 1. All the polls show very clearly that people's jobs and their household finances rate very much higher than immigration 2. The government can't "STOP THE BOATS". So even for tattooed voter the only thing they are going to see is the government giving it large but doing little. We don't need to worry about the courts or "EU human rights" - the government can't get it that far along for them to be relevant.
“We spend £350m a week on housing illegal immigrants. Let’s spend it on the NHS instead.”
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
Your children - I think - are a lot older, which probably implies a lot more cost in activities and clothes etc (if their at age where you still fund clothes). We've not had to buy many clothes for ours (lots of cousins nearby, plus some friends with kids slightly older passing on - well, in fact we have a bit of an informal clothes library among a group of friends as the ages and sexes are well aligned for it to work well). Other than that, dunno, our lifestyles sound pretty similar.
ETA: My wife would be on similar to me, probably - we were about even when she gave up work after number 2. We'd have been ahead after child care and commuting costs if she'd returned to work, but not by all that much, so we (she mostly, but with my support) decided to do a few years like this until likely part-time return when number 3 qualifies for some free child care.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
Twistedfirestopper3 says "Hold my pint" I'm 57, retired, bring home just over 1500 quid a month in pension. Mrs Twisted packed in work a week after I retired and gets nowt until she draws her pension from her school in a few months time. We're doing fine.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
From my point of view it is clearly the opposite; trans people have dysphoria and that is a reaction both to societal and biological issues - I don't know any trans person who doesn't claim their dysphoria is likely biologically material in nature, it is just the way to deal with those symptoms means social acceptance; for them to live their life in accordance with their gender identity requires society to accept that gender identity in order to reduce the dysphoria. For some (indeed many) trans people social transition and hormone treatment is enough to alleviate the worst of the dysphoria - which makes sense with a biological understanding of trans identity. Sexuality is just as much about self identification and social acceptance, and we don't know the "gay" or "bi" or "straight" genes, but I don't think you would claim me knowing I am attracted to people of multiple genders or none is me making a claim about having a "bisexual soul".
It is the people claiming that there is a biological definition of women and man who are looking for an "essence" of womanhood - we had a conversation in a thread here a few weeks / months ago where I think the only thing someone could claim was a biological basis for womanhood that encompasses all ciswomen, doesn't disqualify any ciswomen and doesn't include any transwomen were some very specific genetic interactions. The biology on the matter is pretty clear - there are people whose bodies are on a bimodal spectrum (with most people sitting on the far sides of a binary we have designated male and female) and that there are also people who have a gender identity along a similar bimodal spectrum (man and woman, male and female) as well as people who don't identify with either of those things.
We know of other organisms that literally change sex, we know of other animals where biological intersex conditions also lead to social gender norms becoming fuzzier (take the example of lionesses who have genetics that allow them to grow manes acting like male lions when it comes to hunting and territorialism and attempts at mating). We also have clear historical, biological and anthropological evidence that humans throughout history have been trans or transnonbinary and that the claim that this is all recent and dates back to some individual theorist in the modern era is ridiculous.
I would be surprised if the Tories lose all three by-elections. Labour's performance in by-elections has been lacklustre for many decades under many different leaders.
However, the mood music around the Tories is so poor now that holding any of the seats would be a major morale boost for Team Sunak. They will start to believe that they can pull off an incredible escape and remain in government after the next general election.
I'll be surprised if they retain any of the three.
What's the word on the ground from Selby? That's the one they'll keep if they hold any. Have you seen the age of the Labour candidate and the size of the majority he's chasing?
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
What on earth do you do with your money? I find it almost inconceivable that, with a joint income of ~£120k and no mortgage, you struggle to make it to the end of the month!
The SMO is sort of like Silent Witness at this point. You forget it's still going on and can't imagine who is still watching it.
Don’t worry, there’s still a fair few of us paying attention.
Watching Putin and Prighozin engaged in a civil war, and hearing of 70-year-old retirees being recalled to fight in Russia’s meat grinder, is rather amusing to the Ukranians.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
The only people I know with non-working wives earn substantially more than £60k!
Cookie, meet me 👋 (just under £60k, non-working* wife). Mind you, I don't have all those expenses - commute ~ £60 p.a. in bike consumables and car cost under £5k even with depreciation; mortgage more like £11k p.a.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
That's nice to hear, but I don't know how you do it! We have the same number of children, and have two of us earning roughly that amount, no mortgage costs, have only been abroad once in the last five years, rarely eat out, modest taste in discretionary purchases, a worrying vagueness where a pension should be, and still struggle to make it to the end of each month! (I admit I have spent two days watching test cricket this summer; I'm not entirely free of extravagant purchases.)
Your children - I think - are a lot older, which probably implies a lot more cost in activities and clothes etc (if their at age where you still fund clothes). We've not had to buy many clothes for ours (lots of cousins nearby, plus some friends with kids slightly older passing on - well, in fact we have a bit of an informal clothes library among a group of friends as the ages and sexes are well aligned for it to work well). Other than that, dunno, our lifestyles sound pretty similar.
That's interesting, and you're probably right. At least, 8 years ago when my youngest was born, we were earning close to half of what we're earning now and managing. Still only just keeping our heads above water - we couldn't afford the cat to be ill and the washing machine to pack in in the same month - but managing. I didn't really notice kids getting so expensive though. It happened so gradually.
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
The government may be twenty points behind in the polls, about to lose three of its seats. confronted with a cost of living crisis, a collapsing health service and unable to maintain public services. Thank goodness they are concentrating on the one thing that really matters: someone who is not as rich as he thinks he ought to be has been denied private banking. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have all pronounced.
The Coutts scandal exposes the sinister nature of much of the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion industry. Apparently anyone who wants to control our borders & stop the boats can be branded ‘xenophobic’ & have their bank account closed in the name of ‘inclusivity’.
Natwest & other corporates who have naively adopted this politically biased dogma need a major rethink . This is also an issue for the public sector too, which is why I’m reviewing our policies at the Home Office.
Malmesbury made the point to me the other day that if one bank can refuse a customer, many (all?) of the others might do the same, and that would be seriously inconvenient, and might hit all kids of people who banks to a dislike to, e.g. left-wingers like me.
I don't find the story exciting because I essentially think there's a free market in banking and banks should be entitled to provide or refuse services as they think fit, and I doubt if Farage or Corbyn or anyone else would really be umable to find a bank willing to serve them. But if we regard banking as an essential service (and I agree it is) and think this a serious risk, then I suppose the Government should operate a Bank of Last Resort open to anyone in Britain. Seems a bit statist, but isn't that where logic takes us?
My uncle, incidentally, had an account with the Bank of England - terrible service (only one branch) but he enjoyed the prestige of his chequebook. Take that, Coutts!
Banking/payment services for the unbanked are a significant problem for marginalised people, and often a barrier to recovery. It is one place the state can provide a useful backstop at comparatively low cost.
Used to, in every town, suburb and village, before it closed many of the Post Offices and jailed many of the subpostmasters, and privatised the PO Savings Bank ...
I could work during my gap year and save up money for uni without the hassle (and temptation) of a bank account without cheque book while living with mum and dad.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
Why are these strikes happening? Very simple: 1. Long term erosion of their pay and benefits before the recent inflation 2. Very clear that their pay is going backwards because of inflation 3. They have a good union 4. The employers are literally banned from negotiating by a government who thinks they are facing down Arthur Scargill.
I watched PMQs yesterday. Sunak using the strikes as a political stick to beat Labour with. Why on earth would he want them to settle and thus remove his political stick?
Same reason that Maggie settled with the miners in 1981. Because the government hasn't done the prep work to be able to ride out a strike by doctors. Though I'm not sure what that prep would look like- how do you stockpile medical treatment?
(And because, let's be blunt here, there is a free market dynamic here, where doctors can and are buggering off to other employers. Either doctoring abroad or medical-adjacent roles in the UK. And whining about "oh but our ancestors spent so much training them, these doctors are so ungrateful won't stop that.
In related news, one of the strings to my bow involves seeing what's going on in teacher training. Schools are so screwed over the next year or so.)
I would be surprised if the Tories lose all three by-elections. Labour's performance in by-elections has been lacklustre for many decades under many different leaders.
However, the mood music around the Tories is so poor now that holding any of the seats would be a major morale boost for Team Sunak. They will start to believe that they can pull off an incredible escape and remain in government after the next general election.
I'll be surprised if they retain any of the three.
What's the word on the ground from Selby? That's the one they'll keep if they hold any. Have you seen the age of the Labour candidate and the size of the majority he's chasing?
I've not heard anyone commenting on the Lab candidates age in a negative way, although people are saying he looks about 12, they don't see it as a particular downside, just something funny.
The campaign (with nothing much to say on local issues) and his limited connection to the constituency have been stronger criticisms, plus some culture war chat against Labour in general.
I spoke with a Lab canvasser a few days ago who believed it to be close. I've had a small bet on Con (within the profit from an ealier trade, so still green either way) as I think the odds underestimate the Con chance. I can't really call it either way.
(Note that S&A - like many constituencies, I guess - is very diverse in views and population and my view of course comes from one small part)
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
That's assuming 100% of the ticket price goes to capital repayment (the line has zero operating costs). Actually 5% would be generous, so 200 years.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound The hilarious thing about the Coutts affair is that my really posh rich mates regard Coutts as a rather tawdry institution for its celebrity and lottery winner clients. The real poshos bank at Hoare’s
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
You're not getting woken up like this in yer grim cashless London squats
At least it's in the deep south by comparison with our b&b on a croft in the far north of Shetland. About midsummer. Bloody sheep right outside the window would baa about 3-4 am (not that it got very dark) and baa even more when we looked out of the window to see what it was all about, because they wanted breakfast.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
Why are these strikes happening? Very simple: 1. Long term erosion of their pay and benefits before the recent inflation 2. Very clear that their pay is going backwards because of inflation 3. They have a good union 4. The employers are literally banned from negotiating by a government who thinks they are facing down Arthur Scargill.
I watched PMQs yesterday. Sunak using the strikes as a political stick to beat Labour with. Why on earth would he want them to settle and thus remove his political stick?
Same reason that Maggie settled with the miners in 1981. Because the government hasn't done the prep work to be able to ride out a strike by doctors. Though I'm not sure what that prep would look like- how do you stockpile medical treatment?
(And because, let's be blunt here, there is a free market dynamic here, where doctors can and are buggering off to other employers. Either doctoring abroad or medical-adjacent roles in the UK. And whining about "oh but our ancestors spent so much training them, these doctors are so ungrateful won't stop that.
In related news, one of the strings to my bow involves seeing what's going on in teacher training. Schools are so screwed over the next year or so.)
Didn't stop UK from being only too happy to poach doctors trained elsewhere, so the whining is not only of no use but peculiarly hypocritical.
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
Depends on the cost/distance distribution - could be that the unexpected trade came disproportionately from the ends eg Woolwich Arsenal had more punters than expected.
If you really want to impress, you have your account with someone like Julius Baer or the Vampire Squid.
A brand with no reason to exist, and which may just have ratnered itself.
And what a way to impress. At least a Richard Mille or a Ferrari is a beauitiful piece of design and engineering, unlike a different sort of debit card.
I’ve now been through the NatWest/Coutts dossier on Nigel Farage twice now. It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July). Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts. On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.” The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him. So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.” The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out) Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter. “The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.” So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound The hilarious thing about the Coutts affair is that my really posh rich mates regard Coutts as a rather tawdry institution for its celebrity and lottery winner clients. The real poshos bank at Hoare’s
No, they don’t bank at Hoare’s
Nobody sensible banks with Hoares.
Their entire raison d'etre is to talk your money and then screw you...oh hold on, not that sort of whores.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
The Argentinians are a very rum bunch, Italians masquerading as Spanish.
Apart from the Welsh.
And the Nazis (in Patagonia - although maybe they're more in Chile?)
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
As usual Andrew Teale has produced his historic background to the various by-elections today. I think that the historic parliamentary constituence name Barkston Ash should have been retained.
As well as the three parliamentaries we have three local byelections: Llanfarian Ceredigion council Lib Dem defence, Nunnery Worcester Council Labour defence and St Margaret and South Marston Swindon Council Labour defence.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
But, without France, you're left having to build up big armed forces from scratch, or finding an alternative hegemon to protect you.
Anyone who believes "stopping the boats" won't net a lot of votes needs to get out of their bubble and meet more people - and perhaps to stop giving stock to polls that ask what people think the important issues are and give them a list to choose from that includes "health", "employment", "housing", "Brexit", and "the economy". "The boats" and "Rwanda" are winning issues for the Tories. A big fight will be started. Whether it will be two Union Jack-tattooed fingers up to the "enemies of the people" at the Supreme Court, or the same to the ECHR (note the "E"), or a provoked violent incident or "tragedy" at sea (as emotion-inducing as possible, preferably involving "our boys" in uniform), or a Cologne railway station-type incident, or something different, or some combination of the above, remains to be seen. But Labour and the LibDems have FA cards to play, and the Tories are going to win this because they can chime with crowd emotions better.
Two basic problems: 1. All the polls show very clearly that people's jobs and their household finances rate very much higher than immigration 2. The government can't "STOP THE BOATS". So even for tattooed voter the only thing they are going to see is the government giving it large but doing little. We don't need to worry about the courts or "EU human rights" - the government can't get it that far along for them to be relevant.
“We spend £350m a week on housing illegal immigrants. Let’s spend it on the NHS instead.”
I don't give much credence to the kind of poll that asks people for the reasons for their actions or intended actions. But then I've read Gustav Le Bon.
Sure, if the govt looks as though it can't do anything on what it's fuelling as the main issue it will get absolutely clobbered. No doubt about that. But they can do something. They can create a front where they want one and drive the fight, "set the agenda" in the parlance. We're seeing this with the two-child cap. It's clever stuff. A fight with the SC could go interesting places. Didn't happen in 2019. Then they only took on Parliament :-) 2019 is what to compare with, not 1992 or 1997 because the fundamentals don't suggest it will be like EITHER of those. They can stop the boats. They have to up the fever pitch.
“We spend £350m a week on housing illegal immigrants. Let’s spend it on the NHS instead.”
Yes, something like that could easily be part of the narrative. Wrap it in the Union Jack and it will go down a treat. Commenters seem to have short memories.
PS I've just had a small nibble on the Tories holding Selby. Got on at 5. Not a great price and a bit of a gamble TBH, but they've got a chance. The price has come in from nearly 9.
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
On this "Malvinas" stooshie, I see that Spain became current President of the EU three weeks ago on 1st July 2023, and they have been stirring this particular pot for decades as an attempted lever wrt Gibraltar.
So I predict a minor flap, and it will be repeated in about 2037-2040, when they next hold the Presidency.
My suggestion is that the UK should offer far closer ties to both the Falklands and GIbraltar, and other overseas dependencies - rather more on the French model than at present, and including stronger representation at Westminster, to put this to bed.
Not sure any if them actually want that.
But I've always likes that the argentine claim is rather more technical than casual observers of the 'it's closer to them' school realise.
Do many people now a days care? I think if Argentina pressed their claim on Falkalnds, or Spain their claim on Gibraltar, most people would shrug and be like "I have no idea why we have these territories and I suppose it probably makes more sense to hand them to countries geographically closer". I understand that they have military and economic significance, and the UK likes having territories for tax loophole purposes, but I would imagine most people under 50 see them as relics of imperialism that we just happened to keep hold of.
I think the point is that the people who live there ought to have a say. Isn’t that what the war in Ukraine is about?
I think there is a difference between land that has been inhabited for an extremely long time not wishing to become part of a neighbouring modern state by force versus islands that whose only current populace can trace their lineage back to literal colonisation / recent migration. It's difficult, as I don't find the idea of nation states compelling anyway, but it does feel weird to me that the UK just has these territories because of Empire and that is just kind of shrugged at and accepted.
The Falklanders and Gibraltarians have been there longer than the Poles of Silesia and Pomerania, or the current inhabitants of what used to be the Sudetenland.
What matters in international law is (a) possession, and (b) self-determination.
We're all living on land that used to belong to somebody else.
Not to mention:
1. The Argentinians themselves are hardly indigenous people 2. It's not like a thriving community of Argentinians were displaced to make way for Brits
In fact, other than the fact that the Malvinas are in the same general part of the world as Argentina*, it's not clear why the Argentinian colonizers in Argentina should have any rights over the islands.
* In the way that Birmingham and Marseille are in the same general part of the world.
Argentina is about as far from being a victim of colonialism as you could get.
They're overwhelmingly the descendants of Spanish and Italian immigrants, who wiped out the native population in the 19th century, and have been ruled by thugs for most of their history.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
You eat very well on Martinique, with planes arriving from Paris all day with provisions.
Downside is you have to cross Paris CDG to Orly to get there.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
But, without France, you're left having to build up big armed forces from scratch, or finding an alternative hegemon to protect you.
There’s no way France can protect New Caledonia if, say, China fancies a bite. Likewise French Guyana
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
But if that figure is correct, it means the cost of building the line would be paid off in just 7 years.
Again, you assume that the line costs nothing to run, pays no wages, taxes, burns no fuel, etc.
Those are mostly fixed costs. The marginal costs of a few extra passengers are much smaller.
Yes, but the underlying calculation is based on total takings.
If you budget for say 100m passengers, and you get 102m passengers, then your actual running costs for the line are pretty much the same. You’re not putting on any more trains, but making the existing trains more full. Those extra 2m pax are basically pure profit.
France, effectively, has a full-size, large, mainland South American colony in the capacity of French Guiana.
They've got away with it by fully integrating its governance with metropolitan France proper post WWII.
So, maybe we should do the same for the Falklands and Gibraltar.
I believe all the French Dom-Toms cost France a large amount of money in subsidy. It’s seen as worth it as this keeps them loyal, to a degree, and unlikely to press for secession. And their nature increases the glory of the French state etc
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
You eat very well on Martinique, with planes arriving from Paris all day with provisions.
Downside is you have to cross Paris CDG to Orly to get there.
I've spent a few hours on Martinique and was surprised by how many white French people were living there.
On 6th May 2021 the Tories gained Hartlepool from Labour.
Who can forget the inflatable Bozo being paraded round the town. However, it then sprung a leak and is now just a pile of crumpled rubber stuffed into the back of someone's shed. Just like the real thing.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
Why is there a revolt of the 'well paid' going on - with permanent strikes from professions and train drivers etc. Here is a simple theory. It's actually because of equalisation. And its startling.
Take a bloke without family wealth in the background. Lives in SE, commutes daily to London, can't live near it. Non working wife and children. Earns £60k, which in my northern world is a lot. he's therefore a middle class professional.
Tax and NI: 17k Mortgage on 200k (modest!) 14k Commute 7k Car costs 5k p.a.
After this he has 17k left. His children are not going to Eton are they?
The non-London benefits cap for those not doing all this getting up at 6 am every day is 22k.
Discuss.
Doesn't change the fact that if anyone goes on strike it ought to be low-paid workers, people on the minimum wage, etc.
Anti trans activism doesn't have the same kind of backing in the US because the bigotry at its heart is much clearer - firstly because the people advocating against trans people are the same anti LGBT and anti women people who have always campaigned against progress and secondly because those people clearly don't give a damn about women's welfare.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
You didn’t listen to a word if it, did you?
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
The SMO is sort of like Silent Witness at this point. You forget it's still going on and can't imagine who is still watching it.
Entirely off topics, I recall that you use FB marketplace for automotive stuff? I'm considering another vehicle (not even sure whether a bike or a car yet) and I've been looking there at reasonably local stuff, with my usual priorities of impractical and cheap. There seems to be some pretty dodgy stuff eg a Ducati Panigale for c.£4k which is obviously bullshit, but I can't see the grift. Is it just to get traffic to their page?
@Cyclefree mentioned that very grown up tweet by Laura Pidcock yesterday. Sonia Sodha's response to Ben Bradshaw (who I used to think was a very good MP) is equally good:
Sonia Sodha @soniasodha Also: while I’ve got you, your behaviour in the Commons towards women you disagree with from your own party was appalling, and I know many Labour women who share my view.
This citation would be immeasurably improved by including the Ben Bradshaw tweet to which Sonia Sodha is responding (apparently Ben Bradshaw has trans godchild(ren)). Unless you have a twitter account, you may not be able to see it. For all those of you who do not have twitter accounts and so cannot see individual tweets/threads, here is a free view: https://nitter.net/soniasodha/status/1681741925911609347
Fair enough (although I think the contention that all the threats come from one direction is silly). But I was also struck by an earlier reply by Hadley Freeman, thus:
This remark was indicative. I am struck by the resemblance of the Trans-TERF war to a religious conflict, and in our irreligious times we fail to recognise this. Hadley presents the belief that neither souls not angels exist as a given, whereas in fact a majority of the world believe that least one do. (For my belief in the existence of souls, see previous discussions about p-zombies)
Gender ideology, AFAICS, is not only 'like' a belief in souls, it IS a belief in souls: a belief that there is something inside you which IS you, rather than a belief that you are just a bag of biology. (Gender ideology also has the second step which is that your soul - or whatever you call it - has a gender. A belief in souls - or whatever you call them - doesn't necessarily mean you have to believe that your soul has a gender, but a belief in gender does appear to necessitate a belief in souls (or whatever you call them).)
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
I genuinely don't know the answer to this, which worries me. Does a person have a soul? Does that soul start at conception, on/near birth, other? Does it survive death, even if only as a whisper? Do all people have souls? Do I have one? I accept that logically it is possible that I do not, but I prefer to believe that I have (which is also logically possible), even though I know that belief must be faith-based. I have an interiority, that I know, but the rest is speculation and rather worrying either way.
Jeez. A return to ensoulment. Even the sceptical movement (inc the usually excellent Steven Novella of SGU) has succumbed in some instances. Probably through cowardice and fear.
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
But if that figure is correct, it means the cost of building the line would be paid off in just 7 years.
Again, you assume that the line costs nothing to run, pays no wages, taxes, burns no fuel, etc.
Those are mostly fixed costs. The marginal costs of a few extra passengers are much smaller.
Yes, but the underlying calculation is based on total takings.
If you budget for say 100m passengers, and you get 102m passengers, then your actual running costs for the line are pretty much the same. You’re not putting on any more trains, but making the existing trains more full. Those extra 2m pax are basically pure profit.
Yes, I understand the point. Again, the initial calc was
"passengers a year: 182 million
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far."
implying all your takings go to reduce your build costs. And again
"This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
But if that figure is correct, it means the cost of building the line would be paid off in just 7 years." 184m x 14.5 = 2.66bn x7 = 18bn = build cost. All takings go to pay off build costs.
Interestingly, Old Trafford (and Edgbaston) are cashless.
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
You never did explain how much your watch costs and how many years it lasts and what the annual maintenance is, or if you did I missed it. I'd be genuinely interested. I'm needing to buy a new mobile because the old, and perfectly good, one is no longer supported for updates by the makers.
As usual Andrew Teale has produced his historic background to the various by-elections today. I think that the historic parliamentary constituence name Barkston Ash should have been retained.
As well as the three parliamentaries we have three local byelections: Llanfarian Ceredigion council Lib Dem defence, Nunnery Worcester Council Labour defence and St Margaret and South Marston Swindon Council Labour defence.
Hell of a lot of research in that - and all spot on as far as I could see for S&A, including a number of things I didn't know!
On 6th May 2021 the Tories gained Hartlepool from Labour.
Who can forget the inflatable Bozo being paraded round the town. However, it then sprung a leak and is now just a pile of crumpled rubber stuffed into the back of someone's shed. Just like the real thing.
Hartlepool was the peak of the Tories hubris, that moment of self assurance and confidence that they were unassailable, just before the fall.
In a similar way the Brown bounce and all that led from it (exemplified by the infamous Sion Simon article) was peak Labour hubris.
It will be a long time til we reach that moment for the Tories again….
Comments
My personal belief is that we are just bags of biology, but I'm not sure how widespread that belief is.
*well, unless you (reasonably) count looking after three children under 6 and doing more than half of running a house as working! She'd also still be on mat leave, just about, if working when number 3 was born.
Trouble was, when I moved to a job a bit further off the longer distance left me two tyred.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5-QejUTDCWw
(It’s better now, but only because the planes don’t take off from their origin if it’s going to be too windy!).
https://twitter.com/masaccio60/status/1681723136134266883
"Hold my pint"
I'm 57, retired, bring home just over 1500 quid a month in pension. Mrs Twisted packed in work a week after I retired and gets nowt until she draws her pension from her school in a few months time. We're doing fine.
https://medium.com/britainelects/previewing-the-three-parliamentary-and-three-local-by-elections-of-20th-july-2023-95f9f043747d
As well as the three parliamentaries we have three local byelections: Llanfarian Ceredigion council Lib Dem defence, Nunnery Worcester Council Labour defence and St Margaret and South Marston Swindon Council Labour defence.
LOL at the Coutts enquiry form ,where it would usually ask about your job it says NAME OF THE COMPANY YOU OWN OR WORK FOR.
1. Long term erosion of their pay and benefits before the recent inflation
2. Very clear that their pay is going backwards because of inflation
3. They have a good union
4. The employers are literally banned from negotiating by a government who thinks they are facing down Arthur Scargill.
I watched PMQs yesterday. Sunak using the strikes as a political stick to beat Labour with. Why on earth would he want them to settle and thus remove his political stick?
I would be surprised if the Tories lose all three by-elections. Labour's performance in by-elections has been lacklustre for many decades under many different leaders.
However, the mood music around the Tories is so poor now that holding any of the seats would be a major morale boost for Team Sunak. They will start to believe that they can pull off an incredible escape and remain in government after the next general election.
299 for 9
I don't recall Zelensky promising new and oh so genuine status referendums in any of the territories.
Talking of Russia, Putin's PR seems to have been all over the place since the mutiny:
* Prigozhin's going to Belarus
* We haven't got the means to track him even if he's in Russia
* I met him
* Wagner doesn't exist
* Wagner is really commanded by someone who isn't Prigozhin
Prigozhin's has been all over the place too:
* Soon there'll be another Russian president
* No, no, we always respected our president
* Now I'll whip the Belarusian armed forces into shape and make them into the world's second army
* And we'll sort out Mali and the Central African Republic too
I wondered who Putin meant by that last statement, that Wagner had a "real" commander who wasn't Prigozhin - and there's also the question of whether the unnamed commander attended the Moscow meeting - but presumably it's Dmitry Utkin, call sign "Wagner", the alleged Rodnover. Cf. Odinism. Think of the ideology as essentially Razi or Slazi. Utkin reappeared recently after a long period of obscurity.
One of the people whose public comments I follow is Ramzan Kadyrov. He's a complete scumbag and ultra-intelligent with it - a scary combination.
1. All the polls show very clearly that people's jobs and their household finances rate very much higher than immigration
2. The government can't "STOP THE BOATS". So even for tattooed voter the only thing they are going to see is the government giving it large but doing little. We don't need to worry about the courts or "EU human rights" - the government can't get it that far along for them to be relevant.
BBC business editor Simon Jack posted the next day that the ex-Ukip leader's bank account had been closed for commercial reasons"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/19/bank-chief-evening-with-bbc-journalist-farage-tweet-claim/
Now that's what I call a smoking gun
Con 365 seats Lab 202 seats
ETA: My wife would be on similar to me, probably - we were about even when she gave up work after number 2. We'd have been ahead after child care and commuting costs if she'd returned to work, but not by all that much, so we (she mostly, but with my support) decided to do a few years like this until likely part-time return when number 3 qualifies for some free child care.
It is the people claiming that there is a biological definition of women and man who are looking for an "essence" of womanhood - we had a conversation in a thread here a few weeks / months ago where I think the only thing someone could claim was a biological basis for womanhood that encompasses all ciswomen, doesn't disqualify any ciswomen and doesn't include any transwomen were some very specific genetic interactions. The biology on the matter is pretty clear - there are people whose bodies are on a bimodal spectrum (with most people sitting on the far sides of a binary we have designated male and female) and that there are also people who have a gender identity along a similar bimodal spectrum (man and woman, male and female) as well as people who don't identify with either of those things.
We know of other organisms that literally change sex, we know of other animals where biological intersex conditions also lead to social gender norms becoming fuzzier (take the example of lionesses who have genetics that allow them to grow manes acting like male lions when it comes to hunting and territorialism and attempts at mating). We also have clear historical, biological and anthropological evidence that humans throughout history have been trans or transnonbinary and that the claim that this is all recent and dates back to some individual theorist in the modern era is ridiculous.
Err no ball
Watching Putin and Prighozin engaged in a civil war, and hearing of 70-year-old retirees being recalled to fight in Russia’s meat grinder, is rather amusing to the Ukranians.
I didn't really notice kids getting so expensive though. It happened so gradually.
cost: £18.8 billion
https://globetrender.com/2022/05/25/new-elizabeth-line-opens-london/
passengers a week: 3.5 million
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/elizabeth-line-passenger-numbers-beating-forecasts-2-64311/
passengers a year: 182 million
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far.
I could work during my gap year and save up money for uni without the hassle (and temptation) of a bank account without cheque book while living with mum and dad.
(And because, let's be blunt here, there is a free market dynamic here, where doctors can and are buggering off to other employers. Either doctoring abroad or medical-adjacent roles in the UK. And whining about "oh but our ancestors spent so much training them, these doctors are so ungrateful won't stop that.
In related news, one of the strings to my bow involves seeing what's going on in teacher training. Schools are so screwed over the next year or so.)
The campaign (with nothing much to say on local issues) and his limited connection to the constituency have been stronger criticisms, plus some culture war chat against Labour in general.
I spoke with a Lab canvasser a few days ago who believed it to be close. I've had a small bet on Con (within the profit from an ealier trade, so still green either way) as I think the odds underestimate the Con chance. I can't really call it either way.
(Note that S&A - like many constituencies, I guess - is very diverse in views and population and my view of course comes from one small part)
Here's my entire conversation with the excellent @megynkelly - I was honoured to take part in the show. Hope you enjoy!
https://twitter.com/hjoycegender/status/1681969644138102785
Podcast:
https://t.co/F96HgI7HIW
If you really want to impress, you have your account with someone like Julius Baer or the Vampire Squid.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elizabeth-line-passengers-crossrail-tfl-paddington-abbey-wood-heathrow-b1079999.html
But if that figure is correct, it means the cost of building the line would be paid off in just 7 years.
And what a way to impress. At least a Richard Mille or a Ferrari is a beauitiful piece of design and engineering, unlike a different sort of debit card.
It is clear beyond doubt that, even though they could find no real “dirt” on him, they still wanted to “debank” him because they didn’t like his politics — and came up with the ruse of using an expiring mortgage to close his account this month (July).
Farage curtailed this process by paying off the mortgage earlier than necessary, unaware of the consequences for his Coutts accounts.
On Nov 17 2022 the bank put its plan in place: “Recommendation is to retain N[igel] F[arage] for now. However, it was noted that NF currently has a mortgage with Coutts, which is due to expire in July 2023 and which, on a commercial basis, we would not look to renew and so would suggest winding down the connection on that basis.”
The Bank then says it had put great store on his Russia connections but admits it could find “nothing substantive” to pin on him.
So the bank then details the fallback plan it has hatched: “Six months before the expiry of NF’s mortgage with Coutts, they would indicate to NF that we are not renewing the mortgage [allowing the Bank to exit] NF next year on commercial grounds when the mortgage rolls off.”
The Banks then again admits the real reason: “[It] did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.” (Coutts is actually one of the least inclusive banks in the world, as Farage was founding out)
Coutts claims “this was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose”. Pause for laughter.
“The Chair concluded as follows [the Committee was unanimous]:
After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.”
So the mortgage was the pretext. His politics were the real reason.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1681970363545141248?s=20
Their entire raison d'etre is to talk your money and then screw you...oh hold on, not that sort of whores.
However the problem arises if the possessions become wealthy in their own right. Then they no longer feel bound to France and - naturally - seek independence from Paris
This has so far only arisen as an issue in New Caledonia - due to its enormous nickel deposits. France nearly lost the last valid indy referendum and will likely lose the next if the nickel wealth keeps coming
Read across for French Guiana. It’s naturally very poor but maintains a decent standard of living from large French subsidy and the presence of the ESA
But there are rumours of enormous oil reserves. See Guyana next door. If these are proven I suspect French Guiana would seek Indy very quickly
Cf Scotland
Sure, if the govt looks as though it can't do anything on what it's fuelling as the main issue it will get absolutely clobbered. No doubt about that. But they can do something. They can create a front where they want one and drive the fight, "set the agenda" in the parlance. We're seeing this with the two-child cap. It's clever stuff. A fight with the SC could go interesting places. Didn't happen in 2019. Then they only took on Parliament :-) 2019 is what to compare with, not 1992 or 1997 because the fundamentals don't suggest it will be like EITHER of those. They can stop the boats. They have to up the fever pitch.
“We spend £350m a week on housing illegal immigrants. Let’s spend it on the NHS instead.”
Yes, something like that could easily be part of the narrative. Wrap it in the Union Jack and it will go down a treat. Commenters seem to have short memories.
PS I've just had a small nibble on the Tories holding Selby. Got on at 5. Not a great price and a bit of a gamble TBH, but they've got a chance. The price has come in from nearly 9.
They're overwhelmingly the descendants of Spanish and Italian immigrants, who wiped out the native population in the 19th century, and have been ruled by thugs for most of their history.
Downside is you have to cross Paris CDG to Orly to get there.
I also find it interesting that the GC movement, that claims to care so greatly about the rights of lesbians, are split over the moves in Italy to remove lesbian mothers who don't give birth to a child from a birth certificate of that child - potentially putting into question the rights of the non biological mother should anything happen to her partner. That prominent anti trans activists like Posie Parker (who has been defended by JKR and others despite openly saying she isn't a feminist, is against feminism and believes that abortion rights have gone too far) are cheering this change on whilst their lesbian supposed fellow travellers look at the movement they've shackled themselves to and ask "how can this have happened to me" should be a damascene moment for some of these people.
The anti trans campaign comes from the same place that always attacks women and their bodily autonomy - the lawyers in the UK who represent against trans rights are the same lawyers who push for rolling back abortion rights and argued against same sex marriage. The same people who fund CPAC and the Heritage Foundation are funding trips for prominent GCs to talk at their and other conferences. The same narrative - that the perverted transes are going to prey on your children and groom them and aren't safe in public toilets - are the same narratives used against gay people in the 50s and 60s. Protection of patriarchy in the face of progress.
Policies like those proposed by the government of banning social transition in schools does nothing but ensure rigid policing of gender norms; if transgirls can't grow out their hair or wear dresses what will stop teachers policing the feminine cisboys GCs claim they are protecting from being "too girly"? If transboys aren't allowed to wear trousers or shorts instead of skirts what will stop head teachers enforcing gendered clothing on cisgirls that demands they look feminine, again punishing those tomboys GCs claim would otherwise be forcibly transed? If a student is gay, and effeminate, would a teacher necessarily know the difference between that and transness, and therefore know if they should out their students to parents anyway? All these moves protect an understanding of strict gender roles and patriarchy - parents owning their children and their roles as boys and girls, men and women strictly enforced. Anti trans activists are not critical of gender - no matter how much they say "wear any clothes you like, just don't claim you're a woman / man" they still hate on drag or gender non conforming people.
England 70 - 4 at lunch?
This is an interesting read about the attempt to ground ideology in biology by claiming that home sapiens is bimodal. This is part of the attempt to switch the claim from "I feel that I am the other sex" to "I AM the other sex" or "there is no such thing as sex".
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/03/26/steve-novella-gets-sex-wrong-gets-corrected-twice/
"Novella’s distortion of biology in the service of ideology does nobody any good, for it involves the fallacious idea that what you think is ideologically correct is what must be seen in nature. Sadly, nature does not conform to gender ideology, and sex is not a spectrum, nor even bimodal."
Those bloody wokes again.
And as ever, you miss the fundamental point that it’s not “anti-trans” but “pro-women” and based on the view that “you cannot change your sex”.
Why do you think some men want access to women’s spaces and women’s sports?
I'm considering another vehicle (not even sure whether a bike or a car yet) and I've been looking there at reasonably local stuff, with my usual priorities of impractical and cheap. There seems to be some pretty dodgy stuff eg a Ducati Panigale for c.£4k which is obviously bullshit, but I can't see the grift. Is it just to get traffic to their page?
Great idea, as speeds up beer purchasing as I noted in Birmingham a few weeks ago.
Presumably several PBers will refuse to attend Test matches because they can't exchange stupid pieces of paper for scraps of metal?
https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2022/07/the-muddling-of-the-american-mind-part-i.html
"passengers a year: 182 million
Therefore the cost of constructing the line would be paid off in around 10 years if each passenger pays an average of £10 per journey, or about 15 years if it's around £7 per journey. I haven't been able to find out what the average journey ticket price is so far."
implying all your takings go to reduce your build costs. And again
"This report says that the line made an extra £29 million as a result of an 2 million more journeys than expected, which implies each journey was costing an average of £14.50, which seems a bit high.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/elizabeth-line-passengers-crossrail-tfl-paddington-abbey-wood-heathrow-b1079999.html
But if that figure is correct, it means the cost of building the line would be paid off in just 7 years." 184m x 14.5 = 2.66bn x7 = 18bn = build cost. All takings go to pay off build costs.
What is this and why is it PARTICULARLY freaky?
In a similar way the Brown bounce and all that led from it (exemplified by the infamous Sion Simon article) was peak Labour hubris.
It will be a long time til we reach that moment for the Tories again….