"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
If enough very reluctant Tories vote Tory they get a Conservative majority Government.
Not really. This is about getting from 22-24% to 30-32%.
A majority government isn't on the cards - nowhere close. We all know that.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
Francis Pym says hello.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
Doesn’t include tactical voting = doesn’t include reality.
I am not convinced about tactical voting if the polls remain much as they are
I am not convinced either. I think it is the wet dream of centrist Dad types when it comes to elections. By elections are a different matter.
Rather unhinged commentators like Carol Vorderman seem to think they are going to inspire a wave of tactical voting to dump loads of Tories. It won't happen. These initiatives seem to fire up the devoted already. Preaches to the converted.
What is interesting in Scotland is that rise of the Labour vote is pretty universal with the consequence that the Unionist vote is split resulting in the SNP gaining some Tory seats and comfortably holding some current SNP/Tory marginals. Labour's gains are also at the bottom end of most current reckoning there at 19. The SNP hold onto 31 resulting them remaining the third largest party given the extremely poor results generally for the Lib Dems.
Will this happen? Quite possibly but Scotland is more experienced in tactical voting on the Unionist side (and, in fairness, on the SNP/Green side) than most of the UK.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
Yes.
Forgive me @TSE for suggesting so but this doesn’t look very scientific. It basically boils down to a belief that UNS is the most reliable gauge and everything about this nowcast is pinned on that. I don’t know of many psephologists who would go along with that these days. UNS has been less and less reliable except when a single issue dominates (e.g. 2019).
I also note the inherent contradiction that ‘this isn’t a prediction but based on the polling now’ which runs completely counter to the whole premise of what they are saying, that the UNS will take over the closer you get to the actual election.
The polls may narrow or they may not. Pace @Big_G_NorthWales I do not think this is comparable to either 1979 (before my time) or 1997. The former was not characterised by hatred and vilification of Callaghan despite the Winter of Discontent and the opinion polls in the run up gave leads to the Conservatives at least 10% lower than the current Labour lead: in single and sometimes low single figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election
Psychologically I contend that people are more motivated to vote based on hatred than they are on love. All the pent up frustration and anger of the past 5 years (or 14 if you want to parrot Labour’s line) will be brought forth in a massive kicking of the Conservatives.
In 1997 Labour held commanding leads largely thanks to a feel good happy feeling for Tony. Heck, even Big G you said you voted for him. This time things are very different. The country is in an almighty mess but the main factor is the vilification of the Conservatives. Want that backed empirically? They are polling up to 10% lower than they were then. That’s decisive. But Labour would happily settle for a 1997 result when the Conservatives managed 165 seats. I think it will be a lot worse than that for them this time. Sub 150. Based on the opinion polls.
This election will be decided on the unpopularity of the Conservatives.
Says the person who bases their entire predictions on a mate in Surrey.
This is Economist prediction is based on real numbers and precedent.
It the only decedent that actually reflects the current situation is 1997.
And there Major may not have been liked but he was respected.
The reality is that until the election kicks off we don’t know what (if any ) swing back to the Tories will be - it may be significant it may equally be the case that he Tory party is now the party of selfish baby boomers with few voters below the age of 50…
Which is why this forecast may be correct, it’s also why @Peter_the_Punter may be equally correct.
The Tories could end up with 200 seats, they could end up with 10. It will all come down to the actual election and it’s very likely that he Tories will implode and end up on the other side.
And we may not know to the day of the vote given how much (Tory at least) advertising will be done hidden away on social media
Thanks Eek, you put my own view squarely and fairly.
There are two major imponderables (as well as lots of small ones.) One is tactical voting, the other is swingback. Both may occur, or neither, or you may get one without the other.
My rather extreme prediction in the PB competition reflected a game-playing strategy in which it pays to be the outlier. (Your risk of losing is no greater but you give yourself the chance to win big.) I don't really think Labour will have a majority of 245 or anything like it, although since I submitted my entry the chances of such an extraordinary outcome have somewhat increased. I should point out also, with customary false humility, that Electoral Calculus continues to suggest 90 Tory seats, and what's more, that isn't even its worst case scenario.
I think you would need tactical voting without swingback to arrive at such a result, and I'd regard that as the least likely of my four possible scenarios.....but the mere fact it could happen is remarkable enough.
As for TSE, I think he is wrong on this occasion, but as always with our New Genial Host, the good thing is that if he turns out to be correct, he won't keep reminding us of it. Much.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
Francis Pym says hello.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
It depends what sort of voters you are talking about.
You've got to bear in mind that not all are created equal. There isn't a massive swing to the Left going on here; what you've got is a huge part of the part of the country that's centre right inclined (c.35-40%) going on strike.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
Doesn’t include tactical voting = doesn’t include reality.
Tactical voting is talked about by people on here but not by real voters
My guess is that a lot of Tories sit this one out. Others will peel off to other parties depending on their views. Few will vote specifically to “get the Tories out” and a high proportion of those will get it wrong anyway.
Net net the result will be somewhere between a terrrrrible night for the Tories (you’ll have to imagine the Canadian accent) and an absolute thumping.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of goods governance.
Francis Pym says hello.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
Without Brexit type issues, party loyalty is back.
Indeed Brexit was the only time I can recall where party loyalty broken down like that.
During the Brown years several people, here, commented on the tribal, rather than ideological voting of a sitting MP. Who was a PB contributor.
So there will be little difference between a majority of 50 and one of 250 in bills passed.
The scrutiny issue is more serious - but parliamentary scrutiny has collapsed under the massive weight of unreadable laws.
Off Topic - many laws seem to be of the form “Amend law Y, replace text “blah” in section 31, paragraph 4, sentence 2….” Is there an automated tool to show what the re-written law will actually say?
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
I realised the other day that I got my Covid vaccines at Tavistock.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
When do PBers think that TRUSS will return to the throne? Could it be as early as May so she can seek a new mandate as early as June?
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
If the whole thing had been the Bank of England's fault then the remedy would have been to replace the Governor of the Bank of England. For how many minutes would Britain have been able to pay for imports with Sterling if Truss had replaced the Governor of the Bank of England in the middle of the crisis she created?
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
When do PBers think that TRUSS will return to the throne? Could it be as early as May so she can seek a new mandate as early as June?
Who would count against her?
She's been producing non-stop shit for years, so I would think repeated returns to the 'throne' are a given.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
Tbh, the attitude of the interviewer, Chris Mason, irritates me just as much.
Political interviewers seem to have universally adopted the performing monkey Paxman style these days, in their desperation for a gotcha moment, and it simply drives absurd defensiveness and soundbitery on the other side.
The frustrating this was what would be added to the sun of human knowledge of she’d said “yes, I’d rather have been PM for longer”?
His question had zero value add beyond mere mastabatory entertainment
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of goods governance.
Francis Pym says hello.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
Without Brexit type issues, party loyalty is back.
Indeed Brexit was the only time I can recall where party loyalty broken down like that.
During the Brown years several people, here, commented on the tribal, rather than ideological voting of a sitting MP. Who was a PB contributor.
So there will be little difference between a majority of 50 and one of 250 in bills passed.
The scrutiny issue is more serious - but parliamentary scrutiny has collapsed under the massive weight of unreadable laws.
Off Topic - many laws seem to be of the form “Amend law Y, replace text “blah” in section 31, paragraph 4, sentence 2….” Is there an automated tool to show what the re-written law will actually say?
Do you mean for bills going through parliament? Once they have been to the palace, legislation.gov.uk has an option to show the current version.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
She is a nutter.
I think Cummings has spoken on this issue.
Does Cummings have a good word to say about anyone?
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
She is a nutter.
I think Cummings has spoken on this issue.
Does Cummings have a good word to say about anyone?
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
Yes.
Forgive me @TSE for suggesting so but this doesn’t look very scientific. It basically boils down to a belief that UNS is the most reliable gauge and everything about this nowcast is pinned on that. I don’t know of many psephologists who would go along with that these days. UNS has been less and less reliable except when a single issue dominates (e.g. 2019).
I also note the inherent contradiction that ‘this isn’t a prediction but based on the polling now’ which runs completely counter to the whole premise of what they are saying, that the UNS will take over the closer you get to the actual election.
The polls may narrow or they may not. Pace @Big_G_NorthWales I do not think this is comparable to either 1979 (before my time) or 1997. The former was not characterised by hatred and vilification of Callaghan despite the Winter of Discontent and the opinion polls in the run up gave leads to the Conservatives at least 10% lower than the current Labour lead: in single and sometimes low single figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1979_United_Kingdom_general_election
Psychologically I contend that people are more motivated to vote based on hatred than they are on love. All the pent up frustration and anger of the past 5 years (or 14 if you want to parrot Labour’s line) will be brought forth in a massive kicking of the Conservatives.
In 1997 Labour held commanding leads largely thanks to a feel good happy feeling for Tony. Heck, even Big G you said you voted for him. This time things are very different. The country is in an almighty mess but the main factor is the vilification of the Conservatives. Want that backed empirically? They are polling up to 10% lower than they were then. That’s decisive. But Labour would happily settle for a 1997 result when the Conservatives managed 165 seats. I think it will be a lot worse than that for them this time. Sub 150. Based on the opinion polls.
This election will be decided on the unpopularity of the Conservatives.
Says the person who bases their entire predictions on a mate in Surrey.
This is Economist prediction is based on real numbers and precedent.
It the only decedent that actually reflects the current situation is 1997.
And there Major may not have been liked but he was respected.
The reality is that until the election kicks off we don’t know what (if any ) swing back to the Tories will be - it may be significant it may equally be the case that he Tory party is now the party of selfish baby boomers with few voters below the age of 50…
Which is why this forecast may be correct, it’s also why @Peter_the_Punter may be equally correct.
The Tories could end up with 200 seats, they could end up with 10. It will all come down to the actual election and it’s very likely that he Tories will implode and end up on the other side.
And we may not know to the day of the vote given how much (Tory at least) advertising will be done hidden away on social media
Thanks Eek, you put my own view squarely and fairly.
There are two major imponderables (as well as lots of small ones.) One is tactical voting, the other is swingback. Both may occur, or neither, or you may get one without the other.
My rather extreme prediction in the PB competition reflected a game-playing strategy in which it pays to be the outlier. (Your risk of losing is no greater but you give yourself the chance to win big.) I don't really think Labour will have a majority of 245 or anything like it, although since I submitted my entry the chances of such an extraordinary outcome have somewhat increased. I should point out also, with customary false humility, that Electoral Calculus continues to suggest 90 Tory seats, and what's more, that isn't even its worst case scenario.
I think you would need tactical voting without swingback to arrive at such a result, and I'd regard that as the least likely of my four possible scenarios.....but the mere fact it could happen is remarkable enough.
As for TSE, I think he is wrong on this occasion, but as always with our New Genial Host, the good thing is that if he turns out to be correct, he won't keep reminding us of it. Much.
Another question is the behaviour of former Tory voters who tell the pollsters they will vote Reform, in seats where Reform does not, on the day, stand. Will there be a forced but not uniform swingback or more abstentions?
The Economist's model makes pretty poor work of the Lib Dems and the SNP. If I'd made a model like this, I'd think twice about publishing. UNS is like FPTP - it works well if there are only 2 parties. It fails where there are more choices. They admit that they take no account of tactical voting; that will be a big factor in this year's election. Another big factor is in how much harder a party works in a 'winnable' seat. That will also shift the dial for the Lib Dems and against the SNP.
Truss endorsing Trump says it all. It's not like there's that much ideological common ground between them. No, what they share in common is narcissistic grievance. They both blame their failure on a Deep State.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 22s The saddest thing is Liz Truss doesn’t believe a word of this. She’s just saying it because she thinks reinventing herself as a standard bearer for the Right is a way of making herself relevant again.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
She is a nutter.
To be fair and exact, there is enormous official inertia in government.
The sum of the various interests, habits and structures of the permanent apparatus of government.
All organisations have a version of this.
The problem is that modern politicians have little to no experience or understanding of -
1) detect when the reasons given for slow walking a proposal are bullshit 2) detect when the reasons given for slow walking a proposal are about sanity. 3) know how to change the policy of a large organisation. 4) what they want
So they
A )Announce they want something B )Get upset when it never happens
Truss endorsing Trump says it all. It's not like there's that much ideological common ground between them. No, what they share in common is narcissistic grievance. They both blame their failure on a Deep State.
Is there any chance of her losing her seat? I can't believe she ever spends any time there the amount of glad-handing alt-right whackos she undertakes.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
She is a nutter.
I think Cummings has spoken on this issue.
Yes. He said: “about as close to properly crackers as anybody I've met in parliament”.
Anyone know when Shy Tories became a thing that caused polls to be wrong? 1992 was the election where people sat up and took notice, but was it in the undergrowth before that?
Reason I ask is that the model (using the sort of intelligence that isn't entirely natural?) anticipates the Conservatives doing better than the polls suggest, because they have in the past. But polls now are much more determined to account for that effect than the polls the model was trained on.
I think it more likely to be a shy reform problem than a shy tory problem in 2024.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
Canadian doctors have said they disagree with the findings and have no plans on changing their care because of it.
Truss endorsing Trump says it all. It's not like there's that much ideological common ground between them. No, what they share in common is narcissistic grievance. They both blame their failure on a Deep State.
Is there any chance of her losing her seat? I can't believe she ever spends any time there the amount of glad-handing alt-right whackos she undertakes.
Only if the London elite, Daily Star reading, Bank of England lefties move their en masse to unfairly sabotage her.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
Looking at various swing seats there truly is lashings of hopium in that methodology. Tories clinging on by a percent or two with Labour and LibDems massively splitting the vote.
In the social media age? In the odd seat that is bound to happen. But this has it happening everywhere. As an example it has the Tories just about holding Hazel Grove - despite everything...
There are a couple of things that will make tactical voting less effective than it might be.
1. The new seat boundaries. 2. The massive size of the swings in vote share.
Both of these things introduce a large element of doubt as to which party the potential tactical voter should vote for. Mistakes will be made.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
Canadian doctors have said they disagree with the findings and have no plans on changing their care because of it.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
The Economist's model makes pretty poor work of the Lib Dems and the SNP. If I'd made a model like this, I'd think twice about publishing. UNS is like FPTP - it works well if there are only 2 parties. It fails where there are more choices. They admit that they take no account of tactical voting; that will be a big factor in this year's election. Another big factor is in how much harder a party works in a 'winnable' seat. That will also shift the dial for the Lib Dems and against the SNP.
I would expect the LDs to do a bit better than the Economist forecast with tactical voting and the SNP a bit worse. The Labour forecast seat total looks about right
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
You can see highlighted here how many studies were "downgraded" due to "lack of blinding and no control group"
It's lack of blinding and and no control group as a whole in the quality assessment tool, I believe. Without a control group it's hard to draw conclusions - you may see changes over time, but it's possible that those change exist absent intervention. For a toy example, consider acne over a ten year follow up. Acne creams work great - acne disappears. But if you have a control group you find that their acne also clears up mostly over ten years.
Is that screenshot from the Cass Review, btw? Be interested to see more of that bit and the context.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
Using wiki as a guide[0], and if you ignore organisations with "PATH" in their name[1], the initial reactions from Canadian doctors is to dismiss it[2]. Although it should be pointed out that nations per se do not review medical reports.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
I think parents do 'own' their children, at least until they achieve majority. If we accept that children are not yet mature enough to make long-term decisions in their own interests - which I think we do e.g. we don't let children vote - then who, ultimately, makes the decisions? The parents. (I accept that there are edge cases where the state steps in e.g. in children of addicts incapable of caring for their children, but we are obviously not talking about that in the majority of cases). I grant that the relationship between child and parent may not always be perfect, but it is significantly more likely to be in the child's interests than transferring that responsiblity to the state.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
Canadian doctors have said they disagree with the findings and have no plans on changing their care because of it.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
Which other nations have openly said “this is a bad review and we have no interest in following it”?
Using wiki as a guide[0], and if you ignore organisations with "PATH" in their name[1], the initial reactions from Canadian doctors is to dismiss it[2]. Although it should be pointed out that nations per se do not review medical reports.
TBF there is a sense in which nations do - the review commissions for health service acceptance of drugs, treatments, etc. Usually encountered in the media when the English or Scottish one denies a drug etc which the other accepts. Which makes the point there is often a kind of grey zone where judgement is tricky.
PS. The Cass report is not of that level, but may feed into that process.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation...
Is there confusion here between the studies that were included for review. and the studies that were reviewed and dismissed? The former speaks to how studies were selected, the former to how studies were analysed.
The Economist's model makes pretty poor work of the Lib Dems and the SNP. If I'd made a model like this, I'd think twice about publishing. UNS is like FPTP - it works well if there are only 2 parties. It fails where there are more choices. They admit that they take no account of tactical voting; that will be a big factor in this year's election. Another big factor is in how much harder a party works in a 'winnable' seat. That will also shift the dial for the Lib Dems and against the SNP.
Quite. The seat they mention in the opener is Central Devon, which they assign to Labour.
I have not had time to look closer at their methodology, but it is worth looking at the results of the local elections last year. In the Central Devon consituency, the Lib Dems won 19 seats, the Conservatives 16 seats and the Labour Party none at all.
And in a council byelection last month, the Lib Dems picked up another seat from the Tories. The Labour candidate was way behind.
One would have thought that if the Labour Party were indeed set to win Central Devon, they might have picked up one or two council seats by now, but no - not one! I don't think they ever have, not ever!
Baxter's model is the same. The problem there is that he starts with the 2019 result, which was the Brexit election part 2, and then applies a national swing to it.
These theoretical modellers really do need to keep an eye on what is happening on the ground.
The Economist's model makes pretty poor work of the Lib Dems and the SNP. If I'd made a model like this, I'd think twice about publishing. UNS is like FPTP - it works well if there are only 2 parties. It fails where there are more choices. They admit that they take no account of tactical voting; that will be a big factor in this year's election. Another big factor is in how much harder a party works in a 'winnable' seat. That will also shift the dial for the Lib Dems and against the SNP.
Yep. Just looked at some of the Scottish forecasts for seats in the north. They are pants and significsntly over-estimate the likely SNP result. There's no way the LibDems dont win Caithness/Sutherland for instance.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
There was evidence for practice, just not very strong evidence. Worth noting too that there is a paucity of evidence for psychological approaches too.
If one requires double masked controlled trials for "good evidence" then you won't find them in this area. Partly there would be ethical problems, but more practically it would be impossible to mask either the subjects or observers with a placebo puberty blockers, as puberty unmasks itself. We know these drugs are highly effective at stopping puberty, it's their role in Gender services that are controversial.
Cass supports the usage of puberty blockers as part of clinical trials, though it is unclear what the inclusion criteria for those trials and what the comparison group should be.
A pedant writes: you can't do randomised controlled trials if the patients aren't willing to be randomised, at least not in the UK. A considerable amount of time in RCTs is spent acquiring and consenting patients.
Yes, that is a further obvious obstacle.
There is quite a minefield ahead with this research-only approach to puberty blockers in terms of consent.
One other point on Trans issues before I clear off. The closure of the Tavistock and delays in setting up alternative services, combined with a restrictive approach to hormonal treatments has one very obvious effect.
Social transition of anatomic and hormonally unchanged Trans people will become the norm. The concerns about access to sex restricted places will become more rather than less as a result of implementing Cass.
That's a point I've noted before, that the same voices complaining of the danger of socially transitioned transgender individuals are often the same ones strongly opposing medical treatment.
Tbh, the attitude of the interviewer, Chris Mason, irritates me just as much.
Political interviewers seem to have universally adopted the performing monkey Paxman style these days, in their desperation for a gotcha moment, and it simply drives absurd defensiveness and soundbitery on the other side.
The frustrating this was what would be added to the sun of human knowledge of she’d said “yes, I’d rather have been PM for longer”?
His question had zero value add beyond mere mastabatory entertainment
This of course is all true, at least sometimes, however one has to consider to whom it is done. Each and every ex-PM has completely unlimited space in the media to describe in detail what they have done wrong, what they have done right, what their policies were, and where we should go from here. They can talk, write books, occupy the newspapers space in print and online and so on. If Mason and co were blocking Truss from relating her political genius and outstanding policy making to us it would be wrong. But as it is, it is only a very limited wrong.
For all his faults Tony Blair occupies this space, and for all his faults when he speaks he is taken with some seriousness.
There are reasons for thinking that Liz Truss is not a serious player WRT policy and politics. I do not think she has dislodged them.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
The problem with that sort of thinking, like with tactical voting, is that it relies on being able to predict how other voters will vote.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
Looking at various swing seats there truly is lashings of hopium in that methodology. Tories clinging on by a percent or two with Labour and LibDems massively splitting the vote.
In the social media age? In the odd seat that is bound to happen. But this has it happening everywhere. As an example it has the Tories just about holding Hazel Grove - despite everything...
There are a couple of things that will make tactical voting less effective than it might be.
1. The new seat boundaries. 2. The massive size of the swings in vote share.
Both of these things introduce a large element of doubt as to which party the potential tactical voter should vote for. Mistakes will be made.
I expect TRUSS to increase her majority in South West Norfolk, due to tactical and, may I say, patriotic voting from Labour and Liberal supporters.
The seat has an interesting future as a Trussian statelet - a petri dish, if you will, for her ideas, where policies can be developed and delivered before she brings them to Westminster, as PM, and latterly, the world.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
I think "the official state" is her term for what the Americans call "the deep state",which is believed to prevent the Government from doing what they wish. How they expected it to avoid COVID is beyond me, it being a really weeny virus that spread around the globe.
It's as if she believed it possible to govern without the institutions of the state. Which in the case of the Budget, she attempted to do.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
The problem with that sort of thinking, like with tactical voting, is that it relies on being able to predict how other voters will vote.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
No, I don't fathom that. It's self- policing.
If the polls show a humongous Labour majority on the way, and the Tories being wiped out, then that will drive the narrative of the campaign and voting behaviour of core Tories, to an extent.
If it shows it as getting close or vaguely close then there will be a counter-reaction to ensure the Tories are definitely out.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
I think parents do 'own' their children, at least until they achieve majority. If we accept that children are not yet mature enough to make long-term decisions in their own interests - which I think we do e.g. we don't let children vote - then who, ultimately, makes the decisions? The parents. (I accept that there are edge cases where the state steps in e.g. in children of addicts incapable of caring for their children, but we are obviously not talking about that in the majority of cases). I grant that the relationship between child and parent may not always be perfect, but it is significantly more likely to be in the child's interests than transferring that responsibility to the state.
Parents have a duty of care for their children, and all adults who engage with young people have safeguarding responsibilities. But parents do not have carte blanche to dictate their children's life - they can't abuse or neglect them, they can't use them for free labour, they can't demand that their children believe the same things they do. If a gay kid comes out, a parent can't say "no" and aim to torture it out of them.
And kids do, indeed, do lots of "life changing" things without parental consent - abortions and medication for example. Gillick competence is good (and the Cass review is a threat to it, I fear).
The idea of parental supremacy over children should be very concerning to people, especially in the face of evidence that most abuse of children happens in the home or by close relatives. Parents obviously will have a unique relationship with their children, nobody doubts or wants to prevent that. But children are not property of their parents, nor are they an extension of them. They have their own needs and, sometimes, they clash with the wants of their parents.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
Why do you think there will be "200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches"? The candidates I've seen seem mainly pro-Starmer, centrist types. Perhaps you can name some of these "very left-wing" potential MPs?
1996 Donald Trump Jnr graduated from high school Trump didn't attend. 2000, Ivanka Trump graduated from Choate. Trump didn't attend. 2002, Eric Trump graduated Hill School. Trump didn't attend. 2012, Tiffany Trump graduated from Viewpoint School. Trump didn't attend. 2024 #BarronTrump graduates Trump claims he would have attended if he wasn't in court.
Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you related to Woody662 who stopped posting here some years back? He was a very good poster, and astute punter - one of the many that I miss.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
Did you feel similarly when Boris was clearly heading for a landslide? Assume you backed Labour in 2019 to check his progress in the interests of the country?
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
Francis Pym says hello.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
It depends what sort of voters you are talking about.
You've got to bear in mind that not all are created equal. There isn't a massive swing to the Left going on here; what you've got is a huge part of the part of the country that's centre right inclined (c.35-40%) going on strike.
This is right. The post election analysis will be clear. Elections are won from the centre. (2019 in this regard is an anomaly as there was no moderate position available to vote for; Labour blew it by not standing for an ultra soft Brexit and explaining why. It was not Starmer's finest hour).
As long as Labour look like a social democrat party and the Tories look like a dim rabble (though to their despair this is not true of lots of Tory MPs as individuals) Labour will form the next government with the help of about 2 million usually Tory voters.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
I've not dug into the details of the systematic review yet. I'll keep reading. However, I note Cass did talk to and survey the children and parents who used these services, very extensively. That's clearly detailed in the report.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
There is one dominant reason you are having to face this scary prospect despite the party leading in the polls having well short of 50% of the vote. It's called FPTP.
Maybe a wipeout-style election combined with a deeply riven Tory party will finally enable Conservatives to grasp that our voting system is not always their friend. In a proportional system we would be looking at a Lab-Lib coalition with a small majority, facing a Con-Ref (and no doubt assorted other right of centre party) opposition, and needing only a swing of a few percent to get back into the game.
For anti-Tories this would of course be frustrating beyond belief, and even a bit frightening seeing the loonier edges of the right having actual electoral success, but it would at a stroke remove the volatile nonsense that our current system creates, alongside all the wasted energy on tactical voting and bar charts.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
The problem with that sort of thinking, like with tactical voting, is that it relies on being able to predict how other voters will vote.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
No, I don't fathom that. It's self- policing.
If the polls show a humongous Labour majority on the way, and the Tories being wiped out, then that will drive the narrative of the campaign and voting behaviour of core Tories, to an extent.
If it shows it as getting close or vaguely close then there will be a counter-reaction to ensure the Tories are definitely out.
That works as long as there is no systematic bias in the polls and everyone makes their mind up weeks in advance. Good luck with those assumptions. I know they haven't been the ones you've bet with because, SNP 2015 aside, doing so would have lost you money.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
If enough very reluctant Tories vote Tory they get a Conservative majority Government.
Not really. This is about getting from 22-24% to 30-32%.
A majority government isn't on the cards - nowhere close. We all know that.
So do you.
You are younger than me, you won't remember Friday 10th April 1992. The Conservatives might only get mid 30s, however if their vote is efficient they get loads more seats than you are expecting.
Historically, the Reform vote share was almost always zero. So we can't always rely on history. A big per cent of right-wing voters begin from a place of rejecting the government.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
The problem with that sort of thinking, like with tactical voting, is that it relies on being able to predict how other voters will vote.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
When balancing the claims of two centrist parties there are reasons for collectively being cautious about shifting loyalty. I am a generally Tory voter and never voted for Blair. This time I shall be up and out early to avoid the queue of people who, like me, need to see this Tory government out.
I still don't understand why, of all the political and cultural topics out there, for some people - including on here - trans has become THE defining issue, almost to the exclusion of all others.
I can sort of understand some people having tunnel vision over Israel-Palestine, or immigration, or Brexit, or even Currygate and Angela Rayner's house. But trans? It's so niche yet so salient. Our equivalent of American obsessing over abortion only several orders of magnitude more niche.
Let's analogise the Cass review to a different demographic.
Imagine that a review of women's reproductive healthcare took place (with a focus on abortion), and the response from most women was one of shock and horror at the reviews methodology, findings and conclusions. Imagine that the review overwhelmingly cited anti-abortion activists, and ignored or downgraded the significance of multiple studies that talked about the medical reality of abortions. Imagine this review was conducted by a man, and spoke only to male doctors, or a few women who were active anti-abortion activists who regretted their abortions. Imagine that women's advocacy groups, doctors and charities made multiple public statements about how this review is clearly biased and not in line with the scientific evidence. And imagine that despite all this, the politics surrounding the review have been lead by political parties and activists and a media climate that has stoked anti-abortion narratives for years and years.
That is what this review is. It is a political hatchet job. Politicians and journalists in the UK are happy with the outcomes, but doctors who specialise in this area and the people it will effect are not.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
To be fair to Cass there were some significant issues with the Tavistock clinic. Even if most of the treatments were appropriate and effective, the clinic has a duty of care that doesn't seem to have been met.
It's the wider conclusions that look suspect. Not talking to the patients and their parents to find out what went well and what what badly, and not consulting with practitioners in the field to understand what is current best practice and why they undertake the various treatments even if you ultimately reject those treatments seems like a massive fail.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
Did you feel similarly when Boris was clearly heading for a landslide? Assume you backed Labour in 2019 to check his progress in the interests of the country?
I don't think it was really accepted - especially by those on the right - that Boris was heading for a landslide. I remember on election night 2019 being as worried as I'd ever been by world events up to that point in my life that Corbyn might be about to have access to the levers of power. (The only way I could bear to watch the news was by looking at the GBP:USD exchange rate - when it ticked up slightly at 10pm I knew we were safe.) Whereas I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that Starmer will win.
Back in 2017, however, I do think there was quite a lot of expectation that TMay would win easily, and that probably drove up the Lab vote and down the Con vote.
Critics of the methodology of the systematic reviews that form the basis of the Cass Review are displaying their limited understanding of research methods and evidence based medicine — but that’s what got us into this mess in the first place
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
Liz Truss may allege many conspiracy theories, but not sure how this is one? I think what she's saying is that her own expectations (presumably one shared by the wider public) were that a vast organisation of permanent public servants would find time to devise a well oiled West Wing style Government machine. One that ensured senior polticians could glide through the basics of life (getting from appointment to appointment, appearing well-groomed, getting a coffee) so that they could concentrate on delivering policy. That would include minimising their pandemic exposure as far as possible.
That doesn't seem to have happened, either within Borises No. 10 or Trusses, and perhaps that's a consequence of a permanent civil service not being beholden to, or even particularly liking, politicians, whereas in the USA such people are political appointees. I don't want my senior politicians spoiled, but would be happy for a slicker system for taking care of the details of their work (hair appointments etc.) to be put in place. I want a PM to be helping the country, not stressed because they have no clean socks.
Let's analogise the Cass review to a different demographic.
Imagine that a review of women's reproductive healthcare took place (with a focus on abortion), and the response from most women was one of shock and horror at the reviews methodology, findings and conclusions. Imagine that the review overwhelmingly cited anti-abortion activists, and ignored or downgraded the significance of multiple studies that talked about the medical reality of abortions. Imagine this review was conducted by a man, and spoke only to male doctors, or a few women who were active anti-abortion activists who regretted their abortions. Imagine that women's advocacy groups, doctors and charities made multiple public statements about how this review is clearly biased and not in line with the scientific evidence. And imagine that despite all this, the politics surrounding the review have been lead by political parties and activists and a media climate that has stoked anti-abortion narratives for years and years.
That is what this review is. It is a political hatchet job. Politicians and journalists in the UK are happy with the outcomes, but doctors who specialise in this area and the people it will effect are not.
Show you haven’t read the Cass review without saying you haven’t read the Cass review.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
If enough very reluctant Tories vote Tory they get a Conservative majority Government.
Not really. This is about getting from 22-24% to 30-32%.
A majority government isn't on the cards - nowhere close. We all know that.
So do you.
You are younger than me, you won't remember Friday 10th April 1992. The Conservatives might only get mid 30s, however if their vote is efficient they get loads more seats than you are expecting.
I remember it well.
The Conservatives are going to do atrociously. However, what I'm arguing for is that a narrative may develop that mitigates against a complete wipeout.
It's interesting to see how many people on here feel threatened by that.
I still don't understand why, of all the political and cultural topics out there, for some people - including on here - trans has become THE defining issue, almost to the exclusion of all others.
I can sort of understand some people having tunnel vision over Israel-Palestine, or immigration, or Brexit, or even Currygate and Angela Rayner's house. But trans? It's so niche yet so salient. Our equivalent of American obsessing over abortion only several orders of magnitude more niche.
It's not niche. It's being rammed down everyone's throats. The state has been literally flying transsexual-themed flags from public buildings for years. I can't walk down my local high street without seeing about 20 of those flags. They are indoctrinating state school pupils into this psycho kook muck. People are being sacked from their jobs for calling shit shit - or even just for saying no, they won't play along with it, they won't call a big bloke in a dress "she", and they won't say that men can have wombs and get pregnant. Why is the state doing this - that should be the question.
The answer is to do with the cull that's coming, one way or another. It didn't have to be "trans". It could have been something else.
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
The problem with that sort of thinking, like with tactical voting, is that it relies on being able to predict how other voters will vote.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
No, I don't fathom that. It's self- policing.
If the polls show a humongous Labour majority on the way, and the Tories being wiped out, then that will drive the narrative of the campaign and voting behaviour of core Tories, to an extent.
If it shows it as getting close or vaguely close then there will be a counter-reaction to ensure the Tories are definitely out.
That works as long as there is no systematic bias in the polls and everyone makes their mind up weeks in advance. Good luck with those assumptions. I know they haven't been the ones you've bet with because, SNP 2015 aside, doing so would have lost you money.
I think you think I'm arguing for something I'm not here.
I'm not arguing the Conservatives won't be heavily defeated; I'm arguing about how the campaign may develop at the fringes regarding the scale.
Ha, Aussie Cossack has gone mainstream. It appears he was one of those behind the suggestion that the Bondi killer might have been Jewish. He’s taken refuge for over a year in the Russian consulate to avoid arrest, lucky for him the consulate is out of range of the IDF.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
That doesn't seem to be the case. Most parents seem content with the treatment their children got if they were lucky enough to get past the waiting lists because the children were happier after the treatments. Parents will do a lot for their children's happiness.
This is anecdotal. We don't know because Cass didn't bother to consider the actual outcomes.
Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you related to Woody662 who stopped posting here some years back? He was a very good poster, and astute punter - one of the many that I miss.
I'd be rather surprised if that were the case. Woody662 was decidely of the right, whereas The Woodpecker is notably not of that hue.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
I think parents do 'own' their children, at least until they achieve majority. If we accept that children are not yet mature enough to make long-term decisions in their own interests - which I think we do e.g. we don't let children vote - then who, ultimately, makes the decisions? The parents. (I accept that there are edge cases where the state steps in e.g. in children of addicts incapable of caring for their children, but we are obviously not talking about that in the majority of cases). I grant that the relationship between child and parent may not always be perfect, but it is significantly more likely to be in the child's interests than transferring that responsibility to the state.
Parents have a duty of care for their children, and all adults who engage with young people have safeguarding responsibilities. But parents do not have carte blanche to dictate their children's life - they can't abuse or neglect them, they can't use them for free labour, they can't demand that their children believe the same things they do. If a gay kid comes out, a parent can't say "no" and aim to torture it out of them.
And kids do, indeed, do lots of "life changing" things without parental consent - abortions and medication for example. Gillick competence is good (and the Cass review is a threat to it, I fear).
The idea of parental supremacy over children should be very concerning to people, especially in the face of evidence that most abuse of children happens in the home or by close relatives. Parents obviously will have a unique relationship with their children, nobody doubts or wants to prevent that. But children are not property of their parents, nor are they an extension of them. They have their own needs and, sometimes, they clash with the wants of their parents.
I think we're talking about 'parental responsibility' for children rather than 'parental supermacy', which seems a weirdly loaded phrase. If we accept that there should be responsibility, then who is best placed to determine what is in the best interests of a child who thinks they should be the opposite sex, the parents, or an agency of the state run by people who really really like doing medical interventions to change the sex of children?
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
If enough very reluctant Tories vote Tory they get a Conservative majority Government.
Not really. This is about getting from 22-24% to 30-32%.
A majority government isn't on the cards - nowhere close. We all know that.
So do you.
You are younger than me, you won't remember Friday 10th April 1992. The Conservatives might only get mid 30s, however if their vote is efficient they get loads more seats than you are expecting.
I do hope that other Conservatives share your expectation that Sunak will massively defy the odds and will continue to act accordingly by heading off any challenge to his leadership until it's too late.
Liz Truss devotees should head over to YouTube which has several hour-long videos of various media interviews given by the great lady in the past day or two.
Apparently the whole thing is the Bank of England's fault.
I think Liz Truss's delusions are at the point where medical intervention may be necessary.
Hugo Rikfind's column today illustrates exactly how batshit crazy her thinking is
This starts long before she is even in Downing Street. It’s 2020, and the Covid pandemic has just kicked off. Boris Johnson is already sick, as is Dominic Cummings, as is Matt Hancock, as is the chief medical officer. “I still find it hard to comprehend,” writes Truss, “how the official state allowed this to happen.” Think about that phrase, “the official state”. Who, actually, does she mean? By then, she’d had an unbroken run in government since 2012. Could she not think of a name?
Liz Truss may allege many conspiracy theories, but not sure how this is one? I think what she's saying is that her own expectations (presumably one shared by the wider public) were that a vast organisation of permanent public servants would find time to devise a well oiled West Wing style Government machine. One that ensured senior polticians could glide through the basics of life (getting from appointment to appointment, appearing well-groomed, getting a coffee) so that they could concentrate on delivering policy. That would include minimising their pandemic exposure as far as possible.
That doesn't seem to have happened, either within Borises No. 10 or Trusses, and perhaps that's a consequence of a permanent civil service not being beholden to, or even particularly liking, politicians, whereas in the USA such people are political appointees. I don't want my senior politicians spoiled, but would be happy for a slicker system for taking care of the details of their work (hair appointments etc.) to be put in place. I want a PM to be helping the country, not stressed because they have no clean socks.
Well I think we would all get behind your final sentence here.
I still don't understand why, of all the political and cultural topics out there, for some people - including on here - trans has become THE defining issue, almost to the exclusion of all others.
I can sort of understand some people having tunnel vision over Israel-Palestine, or immigration, or Brexit, or even Currygate and Angela Rayner's house. But trans? It's so niche yet so salient. Our equivalent of American obsessing over abortion only several orders of magnitude more niche.
It's because the extremes of the debate are more prominent than in other areas, and so there is an easier rhetorical target for people on the other side to take aim at.
Generally speaking discourse on the internet tends towards finding the area where people think they have the strongest argument to prove the other person wrong, so it will gravitate to areas where the differences in view are largest and most strongly held.
Since the trans debate encompasses arguments like, "it is insane to put a male rapist into prison with their future female victims," and, "why is it a problem for you to call Simon 'Susan', if that's what they want?" then it's a debate people will gravitate to over trying to work out how to increase productivity, which we all agree would be a jolly good thing, but no idea in circulation appears as obviously wrong to other people as with the extremes of the trans debate.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
I think parents do 'own' their children, at least until they achieve majority. If we accept that children are not yet mature enough to make long-term decisions in their own interests - which I think we do e.g. we don't let children vote - then who, ultimately, makes the decisions? The parents. (I accept that there are edge cases where the state steps in e.g. in children of addicts incapable of caring for their children, but we are obviously not talking about that in the majority of cases). I grant that the relationship between child and parent may not always be perfect, but it is significantly more likely to be in the child's interests than transferring that responsibility to the state.
Parents have a duty of care for their children, and all adults who engage with young people have safeguarding responsibilities. But parents do not have carte blanche to dictate their children's life - they can't abuse or neglect them, they can't use them for free labour, they can't demand that their children believe the same things they do. If a gay kid comes out, a parent can't say "no" and aim to torture it out of them.
And kids do, indeed, do lots of "life changing" things without parental consent - abortions and medication for example. Gillick competence is good (and the Cass review is a threat to it, I fear).
The idea of parental supremacy over children should be very concerning to people, especially in the face of evidence that most abuse of children happens in the home or by close relatives. Parents obviously will have a unique relationship with their children, nobody doubts or wants to prevent that. But children are not property of their parents, nor are they an extension of them. They have their own needs and, sometimes, they clash with the wants of their parents.
I think we're talking about 'parental responsibility' for children rather than 'parental supermacy', which seems a weirdly loaded phrase. If we accept that there should be responsibility, then who is best placed to determine what is in the best interests of a child who thinks they should be the opposite sex, the parents, or an agency of the state run by people who really really like doing medical interventions to change the sex of children?
I would say a combination of those people, as well as doctors and the children themselves. But the idea that the be all and end all should be "parental authority" is wrong and bad. In the same way I don't think a parent should stop their child getting a life saving blood transfusion even if the parents are Jehovah's witnesses if the child wants it and the doctor says it is necessary.
It's the wider conclusions that look suspect. Not talking to the patients and their parents to find out what went well and what what badly, and not consulting with practitioners in the field to understand what is current best practice and why they undertake the various treatments even if you ultimately reject those treatments seems like a massive fail.
That’s simply not true:
The Cass report is not simply grounded in systematic literature reviews. It is also based on the team’s years of routine interviews, meetings and focus groups with service providers, families and young people with gender distress, including people who have detransitioned.
The Cass review is embarrassing as it shows what happens when you ignore science and go with gut feeling. Even nuclear scientists can be swayed by it. Fred Hoyle a very famous nuclear scientist and committed atheist, was wedded to there being no big bang. The 'father' of the Big Bang was a Belgian priest.
I have been reading the Cass review. It is damning in its analysis that practice was not supported by evidence. That said, I suspect there are other areas of medicine where this is true, but, as the Cass review also highlights, gender identity is uniquely caught up in a polarised societal debate.
Cass is damning that practice is not evidence led. She repeats that again and again.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
One of the major telling things for the Cass Review is how many medical orgs have distanced themselves from its findings, and how many other nations have openly said "this is a bad review, and we have no intention of following it". There are a number of issues, whether it be the unnecessary high bar for studies to meet (if you try to give people who want puberty blockers / hormone treatment placebos - they will notice) or the ridiculous statements / citations of weirdos (the Cass Review cites some very strange Freudian psychology, as well as argues that toy preferences are somehow biological expressions of sex) that have made it too much of an obvious hatchet job. It's a shame that the UK political caste are just so brain poisoned with TERFdom that Labour is willing to agree to it anyway.
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
The systematic reviews commissioned to support the Cass Review did not limit on study type - there was no RCT restriction.
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
This is the report's summation: Overall, the systematic review authors concluded that: “There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow up. No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility. Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardiometabolic and bone health. There is suggestive evidence from mainly pre-post studies that hormone treatment may improve psychological health although robust research with long-term follow-up is needed”. This is in line with other systematic reviews published previously..
The point is rather that the stance the review takes (rightly or wrongly) is that without definitive evidence, a strong brake should be applied to the provision of treatment.
Mr. Gezou, I always forget if it was the 50s or 60s, but the US had a programme of sterilising those with low IQs. Naturally, that's viewed with horror today.
I did wonder (and mentioned) whether the reckless encouragement aimed at children to get them to make life-changing decisions (including sterilisation) would be seen horrendously in the future. Just at first glance, it seems nuts to try and divorce authority from the parents and invest it in children too young to vote, drink, drive, or have sex, while certain groups of people cheerlead from the sidelines and dogpile anyone who has any disagreements or questions as bigots.
You assume that parents oppose transitioning. It's clear from the Cass report that that is very often not the case. Children would not be referred or attend if their parent(s) did not bring them, particularly as the Tavistock was a national service requiring long journeys. Additionally, there was a wait of up to 4 years to be seen, once again requiring persistent parental motivation, and the majority of children had socially transitioned before they ever reached the Tavistock.
You may not approve of such parents, but it does seem that the majority were supportive of the treatments given, indeed desperate for treatment for distressed young people.
True, parents were desperate and many supportive and trusting of clinicians (as we all tend to be).
Also true that certain charities and pressure-groups tried to divorce authority from the parents.
Both things can be true.
Parents don't own their children - children are individual and separate human beings. Parents don't and should not have the right to dictate everything about their children's life. As a teen I had significant depression in part exacerbated by my relationship with my dad - I got antidepressants and treatment without his knowledge at 14 and that was a good thing. Many queer people know that their parents, unfortunately, do not always have positive reactions when their children come out - whether that's due to their sexuality or gender identity.
That doesn't seem to be the case. Most parents seem content with the treatment their children got if they were lucky enough to get past the waiting lists because the children were happier after the treatments. Parents will do a lot for their children's happiness.
This is anecdotal. We don't know because Cass didn't bother to consider the actual outcomes.
Because the Adult GIDs clinics refused to cooperate on follow up.
I still don't understand why, of all the political and cultural topics out there, for some people - including on here - trans has become THE defining issue, almost to the exclusion of all others.
I can sort of understand some people having tunnel vision over Israel-Palestine, or immigration, or Brexit, or even Currygate and Angela Rayner's house. But trans? It's so niche yet so salient. Our equivalent of American obsessing over abortion only several orders of magnitude more niche.
I tune out when the trans issue is in the news. I’m bored of hearing about it and there are far more important issues to discuss that effect many more people . I’m liberal and think everyone should be able to live the life they want but the trans issue has now been cremated .
"doesn't incorporate ... tactical voting" is quite an important point to note.
Given that one party is extremely unpopular, I would expect tactical voting against that party to be strong.
I think this inevitable defeat is probably the highest point the Tories may achieve. Far from swingback, I think the voters are likely to increase their determination that the Tories should be stampeded by a thousand incontinent steers and the surviving fragments used as pig swill.
One thing I have heard that is being reported back from the focus groups is that whilst there is a desire to kick out the Tories there is no desire to give Starmer a massive/landslide majority which helps the Tories to some extent.
If the polls roughly where they are now, I'd expect some very reluctant Tories to vote Tory.
Checking Starmer by voting Tory is the strongest card the Tories have, and very logical.
Having 200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches encouraging him to do psychopathic left-wing things - with no parliamentary opposition- is in no-ones interests, save the fanatics.
The only way that logic works is if Labour goes into coalition with the Lib Dems. Coalition helped avoid the crazies taking over from 2010-15, but a minority government hardly kept the right wing quiet under May’s government. Quite the opposite, it gave the backbench factions (both left and right) real power.
The logic works now.
Labour are on course for a majority well over 250 seats with the Tories virtually wiped out.
That isn't logical. Once the Tories are safely out of office, with Labour having a solid majority, anything extra isn't in the interests of good governance.
I disagree, with a really humungous majority, Labour might do the things necessary to fix Britain's problems like tax land/wealth/property more, rather than do the things to try and be popular.
Weak. You can do any of that with a majority of 50.
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
Why do you think there will be "200+ very left-wing MPs on Labour's backbenches"? The candidates I've seen seem mainly pro-Starmer, centrist types. Perhaps you can name some of these "very left-wing" potential MPs?
They’re pretending obviously.
Lab vetting
‘Are you now or have you ever been a socialist?’
‘No.’
‘Yer in.’
In Scotland it appears the question revolves around being a racist and Islamophobe.
Comments
A majority government isn't on the cards - nowhere close. We all know that.
So do you.
Though 1983, 1997 and 2019 rather imply that most voters tend not to worry about that. If they want someone to lose, they don't leave it to chance.
(Anyone doing an analysis of the complexion of a Labour party with 400ish seats, or a Conservative party on 150 or so.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/16/liz-truss-save-the-west-delusions
The lesson she took from Brexit, it doesn't matter how shit the idea is enough people can be fooled into thinking it's popular
Will this happen? Quite possibly but Scotland is more experienced in tactical voting on the Unionist side (and, in fairness, on the SNP/Green side) than most of the UK.
There are two major imponderables (as well as lots of small ones.) One is tactical voting, the other is swingback. Both may occur, or neither, or you may get one without the other.
My rather extreme prediction in the PB competition reflected a game-playing strategy in which it pays to be the outlier. (Your risk of losing is no greater but you give yourself the chance to win big.) I don't really think Labour will have a majority of 245 or anything like it, although since I submitted my entry the chances of such an extraordinary outcome have somewhat increased. I should point out also, with customary false humility, that Electoral Calculus continues to suggest 90 Tory seats, and what's more, that isn't even its worst case scenario.
I think you would need tactical voting without swingback to arrive at such a result, and I'd regard that as the least likely of my four possible scenarios.....but the mere fact it could happen is remarkable enough.
As for TSE, I think he is wrong on this occasion, but as always with our New Genial Host, the good thing is that if he turns out to be correct, he won't keep reminding us of it. Much.
You've got to bear in mind that not all are created equal. There isn't a massive swing to the Left going on here; what you've got is a huge part of the part of the country that's centre right inclined (c.35-40%) going on strike.
The accusation against Cass there is substantial evidence to support the benefits of a lot of these practices but she chose to ignore that evidence. The problem is her report isn't evidence led.
A different problem with the report may be she didn't talk to or survey the children and parents who used these services. You might think the views of those she aims to protect to be important.
Hilary Cass has no expertise in gender issues in children to draw on. It would be easy to go off track when she has what seems very little information to work with.
eg see case for the prosecution here: https://www.gendergp.com/response-to-the-cass-review/
My guess is that a lot of Tories sit this one out. Others will peel off to other parties depending on their views. Few will vote specifically to “get the Tories out” and a high proportion of those will get it wrong anyway.
Net net the result will be somewhere between a terrrrrible night for the Tories (you’ll have to imagine the Canadian accent) and an absolute thumping.
Indeed Brexit was the only time I can recall where party loyalty broken down like that.
During the Brown years several people, here, commented on the tribal, rather than ideological voting of a sitting MP. Who was a PB contributor.
So there will be little difference between a majority of 50 and one of 250 in bills passed.
The scrutiny issue is more serious - but parliamentary scrutiny has collapsed under the massive weight of unreadable laws.
Off Topic - many laws seem to be of the form “Amend law Y, replace text “blah” in section 31, paragraph 4, sentence 2….” Is there an automated tool to show what the re-written law will actually say?
Should I be worried?
Who would count against her?
His question had zero value add beyond mere mastabatory entertainment
Also - I'm back from a long deserved holiday, so should be back to posting more regularly again.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
22s
The saddest thing is Liz Truss doesn’t believe a word of this. She’s just saying it because she thinks reinventing herself as a standard bearer for the Right is a way of making herself relevant again.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
The sum of the various interests, habits and structures of the permanent apparatus of government.
All organisations have a version of this.
The problem is that modern politicians have little to no experience or understanding of -
1) detect when the reasons given for slow walking a proposal are bullshit
2) detect when the reasons given for slow walking a proposal are about sanity.
3) know how to change the policy of a large organisation.
4) what they want
So they
A )Announce they want something
B )Get upset when it never happens
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920
(I noticed this because I was in Canada at the time it was published).
If there's something in the Cass review that excludes non-RCT evidence, please point to it.
Also, you can do a randomised trial without blinding - sometimes, where it's obvious who has received treatment, it's the only way. Double blind is gold standard, but it's tricky for e.g. the benefits of limb amputation.
(I'm not defending the Cass Review, which I haven't read in full and I do have some reservations about the Review. But I have knowledge of the systematic reviews commissioned to support the Review and it's simply false to say they excluded non-RCT evidence, if that is what you are claiming - e.g. the x-sex hormone review inclusion criteria states as included study types: "Clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, pre–post single-group design studies or service evaluations that provided treatment outcome data. Case studies and case series were excluded.")
ETA: e.g. in https://adc.bmj.com/content/archdischild/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669.full.pdf (this is the puberty blocker review, not x-sex hormone one, but I happened to have the link handy. Same inclusion criteria, I think - see 'study design' in table 1)
1. The new seat boundaries.
2. The massive size of the swings in vote share.
Both of these things introduce a large element of doubt as to which party the potential tactical voter should vote for. Mistakes will be made.
It's important to note that that is a lack of evidence, for much of what is in WPATH 8, not a presence of evidence against what is in WPATH 8.
You can see highlighted here how many studies were "downgraded" due to "lack of blinding and no control group"
That report recycles activist talking points, many of which have been debunked by serious science journalists:
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1780103167876747759
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1779899349507428827
And so on…..mind you, why would people who never dealt in facts start now?
Is that screenshot from the Cass Review, btw? Be interested to see more of that bit and the context.
Notes
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review#Final_report
[1] WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) in America , PATHA (Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa) in New Zealand, and AusPATH (Australian Professional Association for Trans Health) in Australia
[2] https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/puberty-blockers-review-1.7172920
PS. The Cass report is not of that level, but may feed into that process.
To save you reading Liz Truss's book, here is a handy summary:
"I'm a shameless, delusional fuckwit
I have not had time to look closer at their methodology, but it is worth looking at the results of the local elections last year. In the Central Devon consituency, the Lib Dems won 19 seats, the Conservatives 16 seats and the Labour Party none at all.
And in a council byelection last month, the Lib Dems picked up another seat from the Tories. The Labour candidate was way behind.
One would have thought that if the Labour Party were indeed set to win Central Devon, they might have picked up one or two council seats by now, but no - not one! I don't think they ever have, not ever!
Baxter's model is the same. The problem there is that he starts with the 2019 result, which was the Brexit election part 2, and then applies a national swing to it.
These theoretical modellers really do need to keep an eye on what is happening on the ground.
To save you reading Liz Truss's book, here is a handy summary:
"I'm a shameless, delusional fuckwit who has learnt nothing"
For all his faults Tony Blair occupies this space, and for all his faults when he speaks he is taken with some seriousness.
There are reasons for thinking that Liz Truss is not a serious player WRT policy and politics. I do not think she has dislodged them.
If every 2019 Tory voter follows that reasoning then the Tories will end up with an unlikely majority, not what the hypothetical voter wants to happen. It's extremely risky but to vote for the most important thing you want.
If the most important thing you want is to throw the Tories out of government then voters ought to vote for that
The seat has an interesting future as a Trussian statelet - a petri dish, if you will, for her ideas, where policies can be developed and delivered before she brings them to Westminster, as PM, and latterly, the world.
Which in the case of the Budget, she attempted to do.
Completely otherworldly.
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1779671152148857212?
We will see all sorts of defences to this thrown up in the next 6 months by those who'd gleefully (and partisanly) love to see the Conservatives wiped out for their own amusement.
It would lead to some terrible laws being made. Not in the interests of the country.
If the polls show a humongous Labour majority on the way, and the Tories being wiped out, then that will drive the narrative of the campaign and voting behaviour of core Tories, to an extent.
If it shows it as getting close or vaguely close then there will be a counter-reaction to ensure the Tories are definitely out.
https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html
And kids do, indeed, do lots of "life changing" things without parental consent - abortions and medication for example. Gillick competence is good (and the Cass review is a threat to it, I fear).
The idea of parental supremacy over children should be very concerning to people, especially in the face of evidence that most abuse of children happens in the home or by close relatives. Parents obviously will have a unique relationship with their children, nobody doubts or wants to prevent that. But children are not property of their parents, nor are they an extension of them. They have their own needs and, sometimes, they clash with the wants of their parents.
Trump didn't attend.
2000, Ivanka Trump graduated from Choate.
Trump didn't attend.
2002, Eric Trump graduated Hill School.
Trump didn't attend.
2012, Tiffany Trump graduated from Viewpoint School. Trump didn't attend.
2024 #BarronTrump graduates Trump claims he would have attended if he wasn't in court.
You decide if that is a truth or lie!
Hope you don't mind me asking, but are you related to Woody662 who stopped posting here some years back? He was a very good poster, and astute punter - one of the many that I miss.
As long as Labour look like a social democrat party and the Tories look like a dim rabble (though to their despair this is not true of lots of Tory MPs as individuals) Labour will form the next government with the help of about 2 million usually Tory voters.
Maybe a wipeout-style election combined with a deeply riven Tory party will finally enable Conservatives to grasp that our voting system is not always their friend. In a proportional system we would be looking at a Lab-Lib coalition with a small majority, facing a Con-Ref (and no doubt assorted other right of centre party) opposition, and needing only a swing of a few percent to get back into the game.
For anti-Tories this would of course be frustrating beyond belief, and even a bit frightening seeing the loonier edges of the right having actual electoral success, but it would at a stroke remove the volatile nonsense that our current system creates, alongside all the wasted energy on tactical voting and bar charts.
I can sort of understand some people having tunnel vision over Israel-Palestine, or immigration, or Brexit, or even Currygate and Angela Rayner's house. But trans? It's so niche yet so salient. Our equivalent of American obsessing over abortion only several orders of magnitude more niche.
Imagine that a review of women's reproductive healthcare took place (with a focus on abortion), and the response from most women was one of shock and horror at the reviews methodology, findings and conclusions. Imagine that the review overwhelmingly cited anti-abortion activists, and ignored or downgraded the significance of multiple studies that talked about the medical reality of abortions. Imagine this review was conducted by a man, and spoke only to male doctors, or a few women who were active anti-abortion activists who regretted their abortions. Imagine that women's advocacy groups, doctors and charities made multiple public statements about how this review is clearly biased and not in line with the scientific evidence. And imagine that despite all this, the politics surrounding the review have been lead by political parties and activists and a media climate that has stoked anti-abortion narratives for years and years.
That is what this review is. It is a political hatchet job. Politicians and journalists in the UK are happy with the outcomes, but doctors who specialise in this area and the people it will effect are not.
It's the wider conclusions that look suspect. Not talking to the patients and their parents to find out what went well and what what badly, and not consulting with practitioners in the field to understand what is current best practice and why they undertake the various treatments even if you ultimately reject those treatments seems like a massive fail.
Whereas I don't think anyone's really in any doubt that Starmer will win.
Back in 2017, however, I do think there was quite a lot of expectation that TMay would win easily, and that probably drove up the Lab vote and down the Con vote.
Critics of the methodology of the systematic reviews that form the basis of the Cass Review are displaying their limited understanding of research methods and evidence based medicine — but that’s what got us into this mess in the first place
https://x.com/KamranAbbasi/status/1778193553556205809
That doesn't seem to have happened, either within Borises No. 10 or Trusses, and perhaps that's a consequence of a permanent civil service not being beholden to, or even particularly liking, politicians, whereas in the USA such people are political appointees. I don't want my senior politicians spoiled, but would be happy for a slicker system for taking care of the details of their work (hair appointments etc.) to be put in place. I want a PM to be helping the country, not stressed because they have no clean socks.
The Conservatives are going to do atrociously. However, what I'm arguing for is that a narrative may develop that mitigates against a complete wipeout.
It's interesting to see how many people on here feel threatened by that.
The answer is to do with the cull that's coming, one way or another. It didn't have to be "trans". It could have been something else.
I'm not arguing the Conservatives won't be heavily defeated; I'm arguing about how the campaign may develop at the fringes regarding the scale.
https://x.com/sarahmulkerrins/status/1780143216618049883?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
This is anecdotal. We don't know because Cass didn't bother to consider the actual outcomes.
Generally speaking discourse on the internet tends towards finding the area where people think they have the strongest argument to prove the other person wrong, so it will gravitate to areas where the differences in view are largest and most strongly held.
Since the trans debate encompasses arguments like, "it is insane to put a male rapist into prison with their future female victims," and, "why is it a problem for you to call Simon 'Susan', if that's what they want?" then it's a debate people will gravitate to over trying to work out how to increase productivity, which we all agree would be a jolly good thing, but no idea in circulation appears as obviously wrong to other people as with the extremes of the trans debate.
The Cass report is not simply grounded in systematic literature reviews. It is also based on the team’s years of routine interviews, meetings and focus groups with service providers, families and young people with gender distress, including people who have detransitioned.
https://x.com/benryanwriter/status/1777834173694091722
This is the report's summation:
Overall, the systematic review authors concluded that: “There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow up. No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility. Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardiometabolic and bone health. There is suggestive evidence from mainly pre-post studies that hormone treatment may improve psychological health although robust research with long-term follow-up is needed”. This is in line with other systematic reviews published previously..
The point is rather that the stance the review takes (rightly or wrongly) is that without definitive evidence, a strong brake should be applied to the provision of treatment.
Lab vetting
‘Are you now or have you ever been a socialist?’
‘No.’
‘Yer in.’
In Scotland it appears the question revolves around being a racist and Islamophobe.