Which is why sentencing is on July 11th - 6 weeks from the date of conviction...
Some thoughts on the Trump trial, especially as I know nothing about the process so would like feedback from anyone who does:
Appeal - He says he is appealing, but doesn't he have to identify grounds for appeal. I presume you can't appeal willy nilly and I assume they were quite careful in avoiding that. I presume he can also appeal the sentence.
Sentence - I understand that a fine is normal for a first offence, but he has shown he doesn't care about that. He has also should complete contempt for the court and the proceedings and shows no remorse. I assume that exacerbates the penalty. Community service would be degrading for him and not as severe as prison so is that likely. I would enjoy seeing him pick up litter.
Is my understanding of this stuff correct?
Yes, he can appeal the verdict and the sentence. Yes, he -- or his lawyers -- have to say something specific in the appeal.
Which is why sentencing is on July 11th - 6 weeks from the date of conviction...
Some thoughts on the Trump trial, especially as I know nothing about the process so would like feedback from anyone who does:
Appeal - He says he is appealing, but doesn't he have to identify grounds for appeal. I presume you can't appeal willy nilly and I assume they were quite careful in avoiding that. I presume he can also appeal the sentence.
Sentence - I understand that a fine is normal for a first offence, but he has shown he doesn't care about that. He has also should complete contempt for the court and the proceedings and shows no remorse. I assume that exacerbates the penalty. Community service would be degrading for him and not as severe as prison so is that likely. I would enjoy seeing him pick up litter.
Is my understanding of this stuff correct?
Yes, he can appeal the verdict and the sentence. Yes, he -- or his lawyers -- have to say something specific in the appeal.
I still think he should just drop his trousers. If he doesn't have one shaped like a mushroom, then he's vindicated.
Which is why sentencing is on July 11th - 6 weeks from the date of conviction...
Some thoughts on the Trump trial, especially as I know nothing about the process so would like feedback from anyone who does:
Appeal - He says he is appealing, but doesn't he have to identify grounds for appeal. I presume you can't appeal willy nilly and I assume they were quite careful in avoiding that. I presume he can also appeal the sentence.
Sentence - I understand that a fine is normal for a first offence, but he has shown he doesn't care about that. He has also should complete contempt for the court and the proceedings and shows no remorse. I assume that exacerbates the penalty. Community service would be degrading for him and not as severe as prison so is that likely. I would enjoy seeing him pick up litter.
Is my understanding of this stuff correct?
I think his grounds for appeal are going to be along the lines of “this was a politically-motivated kangaroo court, with a case brought by a bunch of corrupt Democrat officials, trying to keep the great Donald Trump off the ballot in November”.
Whether he can get anyone who matters to actually agree with him, is a different question.
But doesn't he (or rather his lawyers) have to come up with something factual though? Like a piece of critical evidence missed, prosecutors withholding something, the judge misdirecting. You know real stuff other than imaginary stuff.
The appeal gets looked at, however ridiculous it is. It gets thrown out quicker if it has no or weaker grounding.
Sad you have not been to Macclesfield. Very pleasant place to live, work or commute from, mainly to Manchester. With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
Sad you have not been to Macclesfield. Very pleasant place to live, work or commute from, mainly to Manchester. With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
So are the Tories worth a punt at 9/2 in Macclesfield?
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
This question has cropped up before. Terminology changes over time, and the term "biological male" rose with the rise of gender critical thought: indeed it seems to have become common currency. Its rhetorical usefulness lies in its ambiguity, as it leaves unclear as to whether the person has a penis or not (JK Rowling uses the word "enpenised" to avoid this ambiguity).
But there are two problems with this.
The first (and obvious) is that law dislikes ambiguity, and incorporating it into law will require a tight definition, and hence argument.
The second is more subtle. The Gender Recognition Act allows a person to acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and - this is the important bit - change their birth certificate. So proving that a trans woman is a biological male *in court* poses challenges.
Right! I'm going to spend the entire day wandering around the scene of history's most infamous pogrom while reading THE book about that same pogrom, I intend to conclude my day of touring at the same time as I finish the book
Has any other PB-er done this?
Spent the entire day wandering around the scene of history's most infamous pogrom while reading THE book about that same pogrom, then concluding their day of pogrom touring at the same time as they finish the pogrom book?
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Are there any bigger issues where the Tory party are on the right side of the debate and will get them a few more votes?
The issue is that most bigger issues are things the Tory party have been in control of for the past 14 years so the default response to say we will build 100 new GP surgeries is what stopped you doing so 2 weeks ago?
You highlight the reason why the conservatives are going to lose big time, and it will be the same when they publish their manifesto
However, as far as I am concerned I have dismissed the notion that the conservatives will be relevant for quite sometime, so now Labour have to be pit under the microscope, and despite their insistence everything is costed of course its not and by many many billions
There is a suggestion that Reeves will attack private pensions as this is one area she has not raised as exempt and of course IHT is the other
No matter, tax rises and spending cuts are as certain as PM Starmer by the 5th July
Lots of tax rises will be coming in the Special Budget in September
Yes Rachel may restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which will save Treasury lots of bns. Also maybe restrict annual pensions contribution allowance to £30,000 and bring back the lifetime limit
Pensions tax relief is one that keeps coming up, because there’s so much money in it, yet the Chancellor has always backed off as it would crash the savings rate. I wonder if the 62% marginal rates have put it back in focus, as people in that trap and piling cash into pension to avoid it.
Obviously the sensible thing to do is to remove the 62% trap in the first place, as it’s a significant driver of changes in behaviour, but instead they’ll probably try and force more people into it.
The obvious thing to do with the 62% band is change the loss of PA from say £1 in £2 to £1 in £5 so it smooths it better so instead of the 20% hike to 62% it would be a 8% hike to 50%. You could introduce it at a lower level, say £80,000 instead of £100,000 so there is no tax loss. You then introduce the next tax band to be equal at the point where the loss of PA is complete so again you don't get the yo yo in the marginal rate by it dropping again. The Tories went someway in doing this with the lowering of the 45% band to just over £125,000, but it was still a hopeless yo yo effect on the marginal rate eg 42% then 62% then 47%.
You want the rate to climb sensibly and gradually as you earn more, not go up and down like a yo yo and violently.
Or simply get rid of the personal allowance restriction and have a 50% rate from £100,000pa?
Well that is certainly simpler. I'm sure there is a flaw there, but I'm struggling to think of it.
So as a LD I am going to identify a policy I disagree with from the LDs. Would be interesting to see what stuff supporters from other parties disagree with from the party they support.
The LDs want to get rid of the tax free allowance on CGT. I disagree with this for 2 reasons:
a) The gain has been made over many years rather than one as in income tax and therefore there should be some allowance
b) It is totally impractical. I have shares acquired decades ago that have gone through rights issues, capital consolidations, etc, etc. My wife has shares through her work that she acquired through her payroll monthly, one or two at a time over 10 years. Calculating the gains on these is just about impossible. Selling knowing you are below the gain limit overcomes that. If I had to sell over the gain limit it would be an enormous task. As with all tax it makes sense to have small exemptions as the cost outweighs the benefit on small stuff.
I'm CON. I disagree with the talk of cutting IHT. It's unearned wealth in the hands of the recipient and needs to be taxed appropriately. I know @HYUFD will disagree with me!
Also the policy of increasing personal allowance for pensioners only is ridiculous. Personal allowance needs to be increased for everyone.
As you know (from previous discussions) I strongly agree with you on both of those @londonpubman
We were talking CGT not IHT or were you just throwing that in as additional thoughts?
The value in the US markets is probably Biden at this point in time, by the way the chance I make it of both surviving to the start line is 93.2% (Interpolating https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) . Given they're both ~ 100% (Barring death) to be the nominees, the overround in the markets should be ~ 7.3% (And should decrease daily)
It's 50.5% Trump and 39.4% Biden right now, which sums to 89.4% & at least half that 7.3% should be on Kamala Harris (It's not in the betting markets)
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
The value in the US markets is probably Biden at this point in time, by the way the chance I make it of both surviving to the start line is 93.2% (Interpolating https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) . Given they're both ~ 100% (Barring death) to be the nominees, the overround in the markets should be ~ 7.3% (And should decrease daily)
It's 50.5% Trump and 39.4% Biden right now, which sums to 89.4%
Thanks, Pulpy, for quantifying what I have believed intuitively for a while.
I won't be going overboard though. I simply do not understand US politics any more, if I ever did.
The thing about Badenoch is she is superficially impressive - she is articulate and she is passionate (whatever your views of her particular causes).
Per the quote above re her meeting normal people - I think this is the issue which is going to be the millstone for her. She does seem to be obsessed with her culture war issues above all else and I’m not sure if confronted with voters about anything other than those topics she’s really that interested or invested. Which is a problem when you’re running the business department, and want to run the country.
So as a LD I am going to identify a policy I disagree with from the LDs. Would be interesting to see what stuff supporters from other parties disagree with from the party they support.
The LDs want to get rid of the tax free allowance on CGT. I disagree with this for 2 reasons:
a) The gain has been made over many years rather than one as in income tax and therefore there should be some allowance
b) It is totally impractical. I have shares acquired decades ago that have gone through rights issues, capital consolidations, etc, etc. My wife has shares through her work that she acquired through her payroll monthly, one or two at a time over 10 years. Calculating the gains on these is just about impossible. Selling knowing you are below the gain limit overcomes that. If I had to sell over the gain limit it would be an enormous task. As with all tax it makes sense to have small exemptions as the cost outweighs the benefit on small stuff.
I'm CON. I disagree with the talk of cutting IHT. It's unearned wealth in the hands of the recipient and needs to be taxed appropriately. I know @HYUFD will disagree with me!
Also the policy of increasing personal allowance for pensioners only is ridiculous. Personal allowance needs to be increased for everyone.
As you know (from previous discussions) I strongly agree with you on both of those @londonpubman
We were talking CGT not IHT or were you just throwing that in as additional thoughts?
I was just throwing in additional thoughts!
With respect to CGT yes it seems sensible to keep a small annual allowance to avoid undue bureaucracy and effort for dealing with potential tax on small gains. £3,000pa seems reasonable.
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Are there any bigger issues where the Tory party are on the right side of the debate and will get them a few more votes?
The issue is that most bigger issues are things the Tory party have been in control of for the past 14 years so the default response to say we will build 100 new GP surgeries is what stopped you doing so 2 weeks ago?
You highlight the reason why the conservatives are going to lose big time, and it will be the same when they publish their manifesto
However, as far as I am concerned I have dismissed the notion that the conservatives will be relevant for quite sometime, so now Labour have to be pit under the microscope, and despite their insistence everything is costed of course its not and by many many billions
There is a suggestion that Reeves will attack private pensions as this is one area she has not raised as exempt and of course IHT is the other
No matter, tax rises and spending cuts are as certain as PM Starmer by the 5th July
Lots of tax rises will be coming in the Special Budget in September
Yes Rachel may restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which will save Treasury lots of bns. Also maybe restrict annual pensions contribution allowance to £30,000 and bring back the lifetime limit
Pensions tax relief is one that keeps coming up, because there’s so much money in it, yet the Chancellor has always backed off as it would crash the savings rate. I wonder if the 62% marginal rates have put it back in focus, as people in that trap and piling cash into pension to avoid it.
Obviously the sensible thing to do is to remove the 62% trap in the first place, as it’s a significant driver of changes in behaviour, but instead they’ll probably try and force more people into it.
The obvious thing to do with the 62% band is change the loss of PA from say £1 in £2 to £1 in £5 so it smooths it better so instead of the 20% hike to 62% it would be a 8% hike to 50%. You could introduce it at a lower level, say £80,000 instead of £100,000 so there is no tax loss. You then introduce the next tax band to be equal at the point where the loss of PA is complete so again you don't get the yo yo in the marginal rate by it dropping again. The Tories went someway in doing this with the lowering of the 45% band to just over £125,000, but it was still a hopeless yo yo effect on the marginal rate eg 42% then 62% then 47%.
You want the rate to climb sensibly and gradually as you earn more, not go up and down like a yo yo and violently.
Or simply get rid of the personal allowance restriction and have a 50% rate from £100,000pa?
Well that is certainly simpler. I'm sure there is a flaw there, but I'm struggling to think of it.
Personal allowances save the tax authorities a lot of time and bother trying to collect trifling amounts from those with minimal incomes. You could take them away and replace them with a threshold below which HMRC doesn't bother, which would amount to much the same thing.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Are there any bigger issues where the Tory party are on the right side of the debate and will get them a few more votes?
The issue is that most bigger issues are things the Tory party have been in control of for the past 14 years so the default response to say we will build 100 new GP surgeries is what stopped you doing so 2 weeks ago?
You highlight the reason why the conservatives are going to lose big time, and it will be the same when they publish their manifesto
However, as far as I am concerned I have dismissed the notion that the conservatives will be relevant for quite sometime, so now Labour have to be pit under the microscope, and despite their insistence everything is costed of course its not and by many many billions
There is a suggestion that Reeves will attack private pensions as this is one area she has not raised as exempt and of course IHT is the other
No matter, tax rises and spending cuts are as certain as PM Starmer by the 5th July
Lots of tax rises will be coming in the Special Budget in September
Yes Rachel may restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which will save Treasury lots of bns. Also maybe restrict annual pensions contribution allowance to £30,000 and bring back the lifetime limit
Pensions tax relief is one that keeps coming up, because there’s so much money in it, yet the Chancellor has always backed off as it would crash the savings rate. I wonder if the 62% marginal rates have put it back in focus, as people in that trap and piling cash into pension to avoid it.
Obviously the sensible thing to do is to remove the 62% trap in the first place, as it’s a significant driver of changes in behaviour, but instead they’ll probably try and force more people into it.
The obvious thing to do with the 62% band is change the loss of PA from say £1 in £2 to £1 in £5 so it smooths it better so instead of the 20% hike to 62% it would be a 8% hike to 50%. You could introduce it at a lower level, say £80,000 instead of £100,000 so there is no tax loss. You then introduce the next tax band to be equal at the point where the loss of PA is complete so again you don't get the yo yo in the marginal rate by it dropping again. The Tories went someway in doing this with the lowering of the 45% band to just over £125,000, but it was still a hopeless yo yo effect on the marginal rate eg 42% then 62% then 47%.
You want the rate to climb sensibly and gradually as you earn more, not go up and down like a yo yo and violently.
Or simply get rid of the personal allowance restriction and have a 50% rate from £100,000pa?
Well that is certainly simpler. I'm sure there is a flaw there, but I'm struggling to think of it.
Well that's probably what should happen, but (from recollection) Osborne introduced the Personal Allowance clawback when the Coalition government was repeatedly increasing the Personal Allowance - as a way of stopping the increase benefiting high earners, whilst also not increasing the top level of tax. But it is simply an added complication for no real purpose and clearly should be removed in any rational world.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
It's cropping up every thread because the Cons want to make it a key election battleground. But by all means scroll directly to Leon's pictures of beer.
So as a LD I am going to identify a policy I disagree with from the LDs. Would be interesting to see what stuff supporters from other parties disagree with from the party they support.
The LDs want to get rid of the tax free allowance on CGT. I disagree with this for 2 reasons:
a) The gain has been made over many years rather than one as in income tax and therefore there should be some allowance
b) It is totally impractical. I have shares acquired decades ago that have gone through rights issues, capital consolidations, etc, etc. My wife has shares through her work that she acquired through her payroll monthly, one or two at a time over 10 years. Calculating the gains on these is just about impossible. Selling knowing you are below the gain limit overcomes that. If I had to sell over the gain limit it would be an enormous task. As with all tax it makes sense to have small exemptions as the cost outweighs the benefit on small stuff.
You realise the allowance has recently been slashed to £3k?
It can certainly be a pain to calculate, but as the allowance is now so low I don't see that you can know you're below it without doing the calculation.
I absolutely do (I know my taxes). Obviously for personal reasons I would like it to be higher, but £3000 is perfectly workable unless you are really selling a lot. You don't have to declare any sales over £12,000 providing the gain is under £3000 and no shares I or my wife owns (or lots of people come to that will have blocks of £12,000 of shares with gains over £3000). So unless you want to sell a lot of shares it is easy to sell a block without having to worry about. I don't think any of my individual blocks exceed that and although my wife's do no £12,000 block will exceed £3000 in gains and if in doubt we would sell less.
You don't want to drag thousands of people with a few hundred Santander or BT shares into the tax system for a tax return of a few tens of pounds.
I take your point if it's a question of gains that are clearly below £3k. But the reduction from £12.3k to £3k must already have dragged a lot of people into the system for relatively small sales of shares. Not hard to get a £3k gain on a sale of less than £10k if you have had the shares for a while, given the behaviour of the stock markets over the last decade or so.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
Interesting.
For clarity, I am raising an academic/scientific point about definitions and ambiguity. Nothing at all to do with the trans debate
I guess 'biological sex' is the Conservative's equivalent of Ed Davey falling off a paddle board
ETA: Hope you're all better btw, they can be nasty.
This paper has been referred to:-
We used to call them hermaphrodites
Sex is just as complicated as humans are. What seems a rather straightforward concept—with an unequivocal answer to the proverbial delivery room question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”—is in reality full of nuances and complexities, just like any human trait. From a biological standpoint, the appearance of the external genitalia is only one parameter among many, including chromosomal constitution, the sequence of sex-determining genes, gonadal structure, the profile of gonadal hormones, and the internal reproductive structures. https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200711
Labour won most votes here in the locals in 2023, but by around 0.5% / 113 votes. Not a huge third party vote, except for a couple of successful Independents, probably around 10% of the vote and a Green second place finish.
Labour about 2000 votes up in Macclesfield, a similar amount down in Poynton, with the commuter village wards very balanced for how posh they are.
For a by-election I'd probably be predicting a 10%+ Labour majority, as Ind vote has tended to Labour in recent by-elections, but a GE is a slightly different beast.
Still Labour for me here, but 1/7 does not attract.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
If that’s what this ‘emergency announcement’ is I hope that journalists actually do their job and call him out on his opportunistic behaviour rather than constantly being dazzled by his supposed brilliance. He’s a hack like all the rest, and just as inconsistent and unprincipled. The only difference is he gets away with it in a way the main parties would not be allowed to.
Which is why sentencing is on July 11th - 6 weeks from the date of conviction...
Some thoughts on the Trump trial, especially as I know nothing about the process so would like feedback from anyone who does:
Appeal - He says he is appealing, but doesn't he have to identify grounds for appeal. I presume you can't appeal willy nilly and I assume they were quite careful in avoiding that. I presume he can also appeal the sentence.
Sentence - I understand that a fine is normal for a first offence, but he has shown he doesn't care about that. He has also should complete contempt for the court and the proceedings and shows no remorse. I assume that exacerbates the penalty. Community service would be degrading for him and not as severe as prison so is that likely. I would enjoy seeing him pick up litter.
Is my understanding of this stuff correct?
I think his grounds for appeal are going to be along the lines of “this was a politically-motivated kangaroo court, with a case brought by a bunch of corrupt Democrat officials, trying to keep the great Donald Trump off the ballot in November”.
Whether he can get anyone who matters to actually agree with him, is a different question.
But doesn't he (or rather his lawyers) have to come up with something factual though? Like a piece of critical evidence missed, prosecutors withholding something, the judge misdirecting. You know real stuff other than imaginary stuff.
He’ll present evidence from the reaction to the verdict, with even notable commentators such as Fareed Zakkaria on CNN saying that Trump is right that it was politically motivated, and the charges wouldn’t have been brought against anyone who wasn’t Donald Trump.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
If the Tories want to get from 23% to 25% I suspect gender is their best bet. If they want to get to 33% it is hopeless.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
This question has cropped up before. Terminology changes over time, and the term "biological male" rose with the rise of gender critical thought: indeed it seems to have become common currency. Its rhetorical usefulness lies in its ambiguity, as it leaves unclear as to whether the person has a penis or not (JK Rowling uses the word "enpenised" to avoid this ambiguity).
But there are two problems with this.
The first (and obvious) is that law dislikes ambiguity, and incorporating it into law will require a tight definition, and hence argument.
The second is more subtle. The Gender Recognition Act allows a person to acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and - this is the important bit - change their birth certificate. So proving that a trans woman is a biological male *in court* poses challenges.
The following is from the For Women Scotland application to the UK Supreme Court and is an accurate description of what we are seeking:
This appeal raises at least the following three issues for determination by this court: (1) The proper scope and application of the GRA 2004 and its effect on the interpretation of other legislation governing the rights and obligations ordinarily referable to men or women; (2) The correct interpretation of “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 and whether the GRA 2004 deems a person with a gender recognition certificate to have the “protected characteristic” of their acquired gender for the purposes of Part Two, Chapter 1, EA 2010; (3) Whether, on a proper interpretation of both the EA 2010 and GRA 2004, the guidance issued by the Scottish Minister is an unlawful encroachment on matters reserved to the UK Parliament in breach of the limitations imposed on the Scottish Ministers devolved competence by the SA 1998.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
Interesting.
For clarity, I am raising an academic/scientific point about definitions and ambiguity. Nothing at all to do with the trans debate
I guess 'biological sex' is the Conservative's equivalent of Ed Davey falling off a paddle board
ETA: Hope you're all better btw, they can be nasty.
Not having a go at you, just lamenting how these very specific form of internet brain worms seem to be so significant in the UK - and the negative impact this has on a minority group that just want to live their lives in dignity...
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Are there any bigger issues where the Tory party are on the right side of the debate and will get them a few more votes?
The issue is that most bigger issues are things the Tory party have been in control of for the past 14 years so the default response to say we will build 100 new GP surgeries is what stopped you doing so 2 weeks ago?
You highlight the reason why the conservatives are going to lose big time, and it will be the same when they publish their manifesto
However, as far as I am concerned I have dismissed the notion that the conservatives will be relevant for quite sometime, so now Labour have to be pit under the microscope, and despite their insistence everything is costed of course its not and by many many billions
There is a suggestion that Reeves will attack private pensions as this is one area she has not raised as exempt and of course IHT is the other
No matter, tax rises and spending cuts are as certain as PM Starmer by the 5th July
Lots of tax rises will be coming in the Special Budget in September
Yes Rachel may restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which will save Treasury lots of bns. Also maybe restrict annual pensions contribution allowance to £30,000 and bring back the lifetime limit
Pensions tax relief is one that keeps coming up, because there’s so much money in it, yet the Chancellor has always backed off as it would crash the savings rate. I wonder if the 62% marginal rates have put it back in focus, as people in that trap and piling cash into pension to avoid it.
Obviously the sensible thing to do is to remove the 62% trap in the first place, as it’s a significant driver of changes in behaviour, but instead they’ll probably try and force more people into it.
The obvious thing to do with the 62% band is change the loss of PA from say £1 in £2 to £1 in £5 so it smooths it better so instead of the 20% hike to 62% it would be a 8% hike to 50%. You could introduce it at a lower level, say £80,000 instead of £100,000 so there is no tax loss. You then introduce the next tax band to be equal at the point where the loss of PA is complete so again you don't get the yo yo in the marginal rate by it dropping again. The Tories went someway in doing this with the lowering of the 45% band to just over £125,000, but it was still a hopeless yo yo effect on the marginal rate eg 42% then 62% then 47%.
You want the rate to climb sensibly and gradually as you earn more, not go up and down like a yo yo and violently.
Or simply get rid of the personal allowance restriction and have a 50% rate from £100,000pa?
Well that is certainly simpler. I'm sure there is a flaw there, but I'm struggling to think of it.
Mail headline: 'Labour plan income tax RAID on aspirant MIDDLE classes'
Politicians much prefer taxes that don't increase the headline rate of income tax for particular people. Sadly - as it leads to the nonsense cliff edges at £50k (now somewhat improved by at least a more gradual taper) and at £100k.
Sad you have not been to Macclesfield. Very pleasant place to live, work or commute from, mainly to Manchester. With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
I have passed through Macclesfield quite a few times on Avanti or CrossCountry, without actually having alighted there!
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
Interesting.
For clarity, I am raising an academic/scientific point about definitions and ambiguity. Nothing at all to do with the trans debate
I guess 'biological sex' is the Conservative's equivalent of Ed Davey falling off a paddle board
ETA: Hope you're all better btw, they can be nasty.
Not having a go at you, just lamenting how these very specific form of internet brain worms seem to be so significant in the UK - and the negative impact this has on a minority group that just want to live their lives in dignity...
Don't worry, I know
And, of course, this is trans-debate. It's only a thing because of trans issues becoming so politicised. Although I did try to keep to the need for a clear definition, if used, rather than the rights or wrongs of needing/seeking a definition.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
Yeah, even as someone who doesn't agree with the conservative party in any significant way, I can typically see a logical chain of events for their actions. This campaign does not follow that. I noted someone early described it as the party being surprised by its own announcement of a GE - and that's how it feels. If Sunak knew there was a chance he was going to call an election now due to certain circumstances, the first 5 months of the year his team should have been making the campaign messaging based on those circumstances and what they want to do going forward. This just looks like the party is dead and floundering. I do think this will be the last hurrah of the Tories - I think Labour are firmly staking the centre right as their ground and the right will be taken by a less establishment more culture war party. Parties go extinct all the time - it would be irrational to assume the Tories are immune to that just because they have managed it so far.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
Anyone wish to dissuade me from laying Trump some more at 1.99 bf? I can't believe price is this low.
Backing at 2.54 Biden to win is an alternative and possibly better bet if you agree that his health concerns are somewhat exaggerated.
I prefer backing Biden. On Trump he is ahead in the polls and incumbants are doing badly globally.
I'm following the US elections state by state, though only a few matter. The key states are: Pennsylvania (20 Electoral College Votes) Trump leads by average of 1.9% Michigan (16 ECV) Trump leads by 0.8% Wisconsin (10 ECV) Trump leads by 1.3%
There is a difference between Trump lead for AV surveys (i.e. All Voters), RV surveys (Registered Voters) and LV surveys (Likely Voters). Trumps lead reduces by 2-3% suggesting that Trump supporters are less likely to turn out to vote.
Allowing for that differential in turnout gives Biden the above three states and 273 ECV, to Trump's 265 ECV. A very narrow win for Biden.
So currently I put it at 50/50. However I think the trend is with Biden from recent surveys and the economy. But the June debate will be the deciding event and I think Biden will win it.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
My working theory is that current Conservative voters are approx 3x closer to Labour than they are to Reform on social issues.
Any attempt to bag Reform voters using culture war stuff is highly risky. I'd stick with broader economic/demographic factors like inheritance, house values, even a last ditch attempt to defend their record on the NHS (massive increase in spending etc). This is where Conservative and Reform voters are most similar.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
It's cropping up every thread because the Cons want to make it a key election battleground. But by all means scroll directly to Leon's pictures of beer.
It’s not beer it’s a picture of “Jerusalem wine from 1902” and I’m quite frankly depressed that no one can guess its extraordinary origin.
I’ll give you ANOTHER clue. It was eventually brought here to Moldova after being found on a train
Sad you have not been to Macclesfield. Very pleasant place to live, work or commute from, mainly to Manchester. With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
I have passed through Macclesfield quite a few times on Avanti or CrossCountry, without actually having alighted there!
Likewise. Never baled there. But I have passed through behind more interesting traction in past decades.
Sad you have not been to Macclesfield. Very pleasant place to live, work or commute from, mainly to Manchester. With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
So are the Tories worth a punt at 9/2 in Macclesfield?
I would still say not, ha.
Pretty sure Macc will turn; it’s precisely the sort of place that will go Labour only if it feels safe to do so; I.e the sort of seat you need to win if you’re going to win power - and therefore ixnay on the tory-um-scay.
The value in the US markets is probably Biden at this point in time, by the way the chance I make it of both surviving to the start line is 93.2% (Interpolating https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html) . Given they're both ~ 100% (Barring death) to be the nominees, the overround in the markets should be ~ 7.3% (And should decrease daily)
It's 50.5% Trump and 39.4% Biden right now, which sums to 89.4% & at least half that 7.3% should be on Kamala Harris (It's not in the betting markets)
I know it's a fairly thin market at this stage, but why on earth is Doug Burgum second favourite for the VP slot ? WTF.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
Yeah, even as someone who doesn't agree with the conservative party in any significant way, I can typically see a logical chain of events for their actions. This campaign does not follow that. I noted someone early described it as the party being surprised by its own announcement of a GE - and that's how it feels. If Sunak knew there was a chance he was going to call an election now due to certain circumstances, the first 5 months of the year his team should have been making the campaign messaging based on those circumstances and what they want to do going forward. This just looks like the party is dead and floundering. I do think this will be the last hurrah of the Tories - I think Labour are firmly staking the centre right as their ground and the right will be taken by a less establishment more culture war party. Parties go extinct all the time - it would be irrational to assume the Tories are immune to that just because they have managed it so far.
I think it is an issue the Party wanted to get out to the voters - but not in the final month. I doubt it will be raised again.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
If that’s what this ‘emergency announcement’ is I hope that journalists actually do their job and call him out on his opportunistic behaviour rather than constantly being dazzled by his supposed brilliance. He’s a hack like all the rest, and just as inconsistent and unprincipled. The only difference is he gets away with it in a way the main parties would not be allowed to.
More likely to be an announcement about 'Nigecoin' or something.
Kind of related to this topic is this story in Derbyshire. I guess Maidstone and Malling have been kept apart because they are in different council areas, but sometimes there's nothing you can do.
Anyone wish to dissuade me from laying Trump some more at 1.99 bf? I can't believe price is this low.
Backing at 2.54 Biden to win is an alternative and possibly better bet if you agree that his health concerns are somewhat exaggerated.
I prefer backing Biden. On Trump he is ahead in the polls and incumbants are doing badly globally.
I'm following the US elections state by state, though only a few matter. The key states are: Pennsylvania (20 Electoral College Votes) Trump leads by average of 1.9% Michigan (16 ECV) Trump leads by 0.8% Wisconsin (10 ECV) Trump leads by 1.3%
There is a difference between Trump lead for AV surveys (i.e. All Voters), RV surveys (Registered Voters) and LV surveys (Likely Voters). Trumps lead reduces by 2-3% suggesting that Trump supporters are less likely to turn out to vote.
Allowing for that differential in turnout gives Biden the above three states and 273 ECV, to Trump's 265 ECV. A very narrow win for Biden.
So currently I put it at 50/50. However I think the trend is with Biden from recent surveys and the economy. But the June debate will be the deciding event and I think Biden will win it.
I agree with 50/50, maybe 48/48/4 to allow for someone else. On the logic, the obvious flaw in the above approach is that Biden needs to win 3/3 and whilst they are correlated when they are close to coin tosses that is closer to 0 than 50/50. This is offset by potential wins elsewhere, so I am not sure this approach is sufficient to get a good estimate.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
My working theory is that current Conservative voters are approx 3x closer to Labour than they are to Reform on social issues.
Any attempt to bag Reform voters using culture war stuff is highly risky. I'd stick with broader economic/demographic factors like inheritance, house values, even a last ditch attempt to defend their record on the NHS (massive increase in spending etc). This is where Conservative and Reform voters are most similar.
I'd have thought one danger would be that Reform might start fighting back - for example by turning the spotlight on the huge rate of legal immigration under the Tories, and condemning the Rwanda scheme as the dishonest gimmick it is.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
One would think that the hegemonic governing party for the past decade and a half would send their minister for trade and business, who is also the minister for women and equalities, to talk about how these things intersect or how they (the party of government) have benefitted people affected by the issues under her portfolio or would want to discuss the bigger of her two portfolios. Arguably the fact she holds both portfolios also suggests a problem of prioritisation - either business and trade are getting short changed, or women and equalities are. That every time Badenoch opens her mouth on anything related to women or equalities it is in an attempt to belittle trans people - I think it is probably her that is typically confusing what are women's issues and rights with the issues faced by trans people and their rights.
If only we could be as Green as those wonderful Europeans...
"The European Union (EU) is set to fall far behind its ambitious energy transition targets for renewable energy, clean technology capacity and domestic supply chain investments, according to Rystad Energy research and modeling."
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Are there any bigger issues where the Tory party are on the right side of the debate and will get them a few more votes?
The issue is that most bigger issues are things the Tory party have been in control of for the past 14 years so the default response to say we will build 100 new GP surgeries is what stopped you doing so 2 weeks ago?
You highlight the reason why the conservatives are going to lose big time, and it will be the same when they publish their manifesto
However, as far as I am concerned I have dismissed the notion that the conservatives will be relevant for quite sometime, so now Labour have to be pit under the microscope, and despite their insistence everything is costed of course its not and by many many billions
There is a suggestion that Reeves will attack private pensions as this is one area she has not raised as exempt and of course IHT is the other
No matter, tax rises and spending cuts are as certain as PM Starmer by the 5th July
Lots of tax rises will be coming in the Special Budget in September
Yes Rachel may restrict tax relief on pension contributions to 20% which will save Treasury lots of bns. Also maybe restrict annual pensions contribution allowance to £30,000 and bring back the lifetime limit
Pensions tax relief is one that keeps coming up, because there’s so much money in it, yet the Chancellor has always backed off as it would crash the savings rate. I wonder if the 62% marginal rates have put it back in focus, as people in that trap and piling cash into pension to avoid it.
Obviously the sensible thing to do is to remove the 62% trap in the first place, as it’s a significant driver of changes in behaviour, but instead they’ll probably try and force more people into it.
The obvious thing to do with the 62% band is change the loss of PA from say £1 in £2 to £1 in £5 so it smooths it better so instead of the 20% hike to 62% it would be a 8% hike to 50%. You could introduce it at a lower level, say £80,000 instead of £100,000 so there is no tax loss. You then introduce the next tax band to be equal at the point where the loss of PA is complete so again you don't get the yo yo in the marginal rate by it dropping again. The Tories went someway in doing this with the lowering of the 45% band to just over £125,000, but it was still a hopeless yo yo effect on the marginal rate eg 42% then 62% then 47%.
You want the rate to climb sensibly and gradually as you earn more, not go up and down like a yo yo and violently.
Or simply get rid of the personal allowance restriction and have a 50% rate from £100,000pa?
Well that is certainly simpler. I'm sure there is a flaw there, but I'm struggling to think of it.
Mail headline: 'Labour plan income tax RAID on aspirant MIDDLE classes'
Politicians much prefer taxes that don't increase the headline rate of income tax for particular people. Sadly - as it leads to the nonsense cliff edges at £50k (now somewhat improved by at least a more gradual taper) and at £100k.
Good point. Gordon Brown was the master of that with his raid on pension funds. Nobody sees it in their pocket for decades. Even when their fund collapses into the FAS or PPF most won't have blamed him and it is too late by then.
If that’s what this ‘emergency announcement’ is I hope that journalists actually do their job and call him out on his opportunistic behaviour rather than constantly being dazzled by his supposed brilliance. He’s a hack like all the rest, and just as inconsistent and unprincipled. The only difference is he gets away with it in a way the main parties would not be allowed to.
More likely to be an announcement about 'Nigecoin' or something.
Oh I’m not discounting that it could be a nothingburger. I just don’t understand how people haven’t after 30 years haven’t cottoned on to the fact that Farage is playing them.
Redfield ramping their poll at 3pm, opinium have started the ramp trend for this GE. Apparently 'we won't want to miss this one!!' Tories minus 2 or some such.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
So as a LD I am going to identify a policy I disagree with from the LDs. Would be interesting to see what stuff supporters from other parties disagree with from the party they support.
The LDs want to get rid of the tax free allowance on CGT. I disagree with this for 2 reasons:
a) The gain has been made over many years rather than one as in income tax and therefore there should be some allowance
b) It is totally impractical. I have shares acquired decades ago that have gone through rights issues, capital consolidations, etc, etc. My wife has shares through her work that she acquired through her payroll monthly, one or two at a time over 10 years. Calculating the gains on these is just about impossible. Selling knowing you are below the gain limit overcomes that. If I had to sell over the gain limit it would be an enormous task. As with all tax it makes sense to have small exemptions as the cost outweighs the benefit on small stuff.
You realise the allowance has recently been slashed to £3k?
It can certainly be a pain to calculate, but as the allowance is now so low I don't see that you can know you're below it without doing the calculation.
I absolutely do (I know my taxes). Obviously for personal reasons I would like it to be higher, but £3000 is perfectly workable unless you are really selling a lot. You don't have to declare any sales over £12,000 providing the gain is under £3000 and no shares I or my wife owns (or lots of people come to that will have blocks of £12,000 of shares with gains over £3000). So unless you want to sell a lot of shares it is easy to sell a block without having to worry about. I don't think any of my individual blocks exceed that and although my wife's do no £12,000 block will exceed £3000 in gains and if in doubt we would sell less.
You don't want to drag thousands of people with a few hundred Santander or BT shares into the tax system for a tax return of a few tens of pounds.
I take your point if it's a question of gains that are clearly below £3k. But the reduction from £12.3k to £3k must already have dragged a lot of people into the system for relatively small sales of shares. Not hard to get a £3k gain on a sale of less than £10k if you have had the shares for a while, given the behaviour of the stock markets over the last decade or so.
Yep. I wasn't happy, but I can't work out if that is on principle or I am being selfish.
Apologies that my reply only passed a glancing resemblance to the English language.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
One would think that the hegemonic governing party for the past decade and a half would send their minister for trade and business, who is also the minister for women and equalities, to talk about how these things intersect or how they (the party of government) have benefitted people affected by the issues under her portfolio or would want to discuss the bigger of her two portfolios. Arguably the fact she holds both portfolios also suggests a problem of prioritisation - either business and trade are getting short changed, or women and equalities are. That every time Badenoch opens her mouth on anything related to women or equalities it is in an attempt to belittle trans people - I think it is probably her that is typically confusing what are women's issues and rights with the issues faced by trans people and their rights.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
One would think that the hegemonic governing party for the past decade and a half would send their minister for trade and business, who is also the minister for women and equalities, to talk about how these things intersect or how they (the party of government) have benefitted people affected by the issues under her portfolio or would want to discuss the bigger of her two portfolios. Arguably the fact she holds both portfolios also suggests a problem of prioritisation - either business and trade are getting short changed, or women and equalities are. That every time Badenoch opens her mouth on anything related to women or equalities it is in an attempt to belittle trans people - I think it is probably her that is typically confusing what are women's issues and rights with the issues faced by trans people and their rights.
The point is that if the Business Minister is also the Equalities Minister then there is no Equalities Minister. Which was of course the intention all along.
Kind of related to this topic is this story in Derbyshire. I guess Maidstone and Malling have been kept apart because they are in different council areas, but sometimes there's nothing you can do.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
Is this not Esther McVey’s remit as ‘Minister For Common Sense’ though?
Kemi Badenoch is also the Minister currently responsible for the Post Office. You might suppose that her reluctance to comment on it is in deference to the ongoing Inquiry, except that the PO continues to obstruct it in its work, something which said Minister is ideally placed to do something about, were she so inclined.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
If you want to understand just how manufactured the transgender culture war is, less than 2 years ago Kemi Badenoch was celebrating the fact that it was becoming easier to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate
I am happy to debate the trans issue but surely politically the Tories going on about this, this week, shows they’ve completely given up. Aren’t there bigger issues?
Yes, but this is what parties do in campaigns. They have an issue a day for weeks. So far we have seen national service, the enhanced triple lock and now this, amongst others. Labour are doing similar, and Ed Davey is on holiday.
They haven't 'given up' - they are putting out policies that they think (wrongly, in all likelihood) that will get them votes.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
It's cropping up every thread because the Cons want to make it a key election battleground. But by all means scroll directly to Leon's pictures of beer.
It’s not beer it’s a picture of “Jerusalem wine from 1902” and I’m quite frankly depressed that no one can guess its extraordinary origin.
I’ll give you ANOTHER clue. It was eventually brought here to Moldova after being found on a train
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
My working theory is that current Conservative voters are approx 3x closer to Labour than they are to Reform on social issues.
Any attempt to bag Reform voters using culture war stuff is highly risky. I'd stick with broader economic/demographic factors like inheritance, house values, even a last ditch attempt to defend their record on the NHS (massive increase in spending etc). This is where Conservative and Reform voters are most similar.
I'd have thought one danger would be that Reform might start fighting back - for example by turning the spotlight on the huge rate of legal immigration under the Tories, and condemning the Rwanda scheme as the dishonest gimmick it is.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
One would think that the hegemonic governing party for the past decade and a half would send their minister for trade and business, who is also the minister for women and equalities, to talk about how these things intersect or how they (the party of government) have benefitted people affected by the issues under her portfolio or would want to discuss the bigger of her two portfolios. Arguably the fact she holds both portfolios also suggests a problem of prioritisation - either business and trade are getting short changed, or women and equalities are. That every time Badenoch opens her mouth on anything related to women or equalities it is in an attempt to belittle trans people - I think it is probably her that is typically confusing what are women's issues and rights with the issues faced by trans people and their rights.
I've heard that marmalade is similarly going out of favour, as younger generations don't like the bitter taste
I expect another factor is that grapefruit has to be avoided by many people as it interacts negatively with a whole raft of different medications.
You could switch to eating grapefruit, which has the advantage of putting some fibre into your diet too
This is true; I’ve had to ditch grapefruit.
Suspect marmalade will make a comeback though; truly one of the most delicious substances ever wrought by human hands.
Me eldest two (6 and 4) are big into marmalade. Mostly lemon or lime, but the eldest has recently graduated to orange marmalade (I didn't like that as a kid, finding it too bitter). So there's hope*
Also, reminds me, I've not had a grapefruit for breakfast in ages. Will add it to the list.
*we need more Paddington films - and not only for marmalade promotion purposes!
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
It's cropping up every thread because the Cons want to make it a key election battleground. But by all means scroll directly to Leon's pictures of beer.
It’s not beer it’s a picture of “Jerusalem wine from 1902” and I’m quite frankly depressed that no one can guess its extraordinary origin.
I’ll give you ANOTHER clue. It was eventually brought here to Moldova after being found on a train
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
One would think that the hegemonic governing party for the past decade and a half would send their minister for trade and business, who is also the minister for women and equalities, to talk about how these things intersect or how they (the party of government) have benefitted people affected by the issues under her portfolio or would want to discuss the bigger of her two portfolios. Arguably the fact she holds both portfolios also suggests a problem of prioritisation - either business and trade are getting short changed, or women and equalities are. That every time Badenoch opens her mouth on anything related to women or equalities it is in an attempt to belittle trans people - I think it is probably her that is typically confusing what are women's issues and rights with the issues faced by trans people and their rights.
i hope she loses her seat...
So do I, but we really are talking Extinction if she does.
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
This sounds clear in principle, but the practicalities are rapidly unravelling this morning. The Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch can’t say what paper work (eg birth certificate) would define biological sex in such cases.
That is because they are making stuff up as they go along, as with national service, because Rishi bounced them into an election for which his own party is clearly unready. Although the revisionist history will claim all this was a cunning plan to get the media discussing Conservative talking points.
Genuine question (to the board): what is 'biological sex' are we talking sex organs or chromosomes or hormone levels? All three seem to fall within 'biological' to me, but have different levels of mutability.
Chromosomes immutable, but would lead to some interesting corner cases, e.g. people registered a sex at birth that does not match chromosomes. The other two are changeable, to varying extents.
Strange how the “angels on pinheads” approach is not extended to other protected characteristics….
Let’s not pretend there’s anything is complicated or practically challenging about clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex is biological sex in the Equality Act. There is a clear scientific definition of biological sex.…
Imagine if some people were arguing that it’s too complicated to define race or disability legally so we’re not going to establish protections in law for those groups. Well, that’s exactly what some people are arguing in relation to women. Have a think about what that says.
Hmm. No answer though - if it's that simple why not link to the answer? And we don't ban people from spaces on the basis of ethnic group, do we? We can handle vague definitions of other characteristics because we look at discrimination based on a belief of that characteristic being present, do we not? Or indeed by the victim identifying in that way.
So, of course, in most cases there's no confusion. And there can be no confusion if the government defines what it means (birth certificate is one means and seems by far the most sensible) but I do think they need to define it.
ETA: Google brings up all my three suggested options for 'biological sex'. The Council of Europe page on the same lists all three, too. So the definition is far from clear, I would suggest, given that those three options can be inconsistent with each other.
This explains what I understand to be the construction of biological sex better than I could here:
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
It's cropping up every thread because the Cons want to make it a key election battleground. But by all means scroll directly to Leon's pictures of beer.
It’s not beer it’s a picture of “Jerusalem wine from 1902” and I’m quite frankly depressed that no one can guess its extraordinary origin.
I’ll give you ANOTHER clue. It was eventually brought here to Moldova after being found on a train
Redfield ramping their poll at 3pm, opinium have started the ramp trend for this GE. Apparently 'we won't want to miss this one!!' Tories minus 2 or some such.
I don't think you can actually poll a minus percentage, Woolie, but maybe Rishi intends to give it a go.
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
Clacton is undoubtedly their best seat so it's strange Tice isn't standing there. Maybe because there was always an idea that Farage might slip in as candidate at a late stage.
As we enter week 3 of the general election campaign, here's what the Tories are still not talking about - the cost of living, the NHS, public services, housing, transport, defence, sewage in our rives and seas ...
They have nothing to say on them after 14 years in power.
So far, I haven't seen Labour say anything on them either, but that may just be because I've been busy.
The Liberal Democrats have been talking about sewage and doing press stunts.
This campaign really has been depressing for those wanting solutions to our problems.
Labour had a big NHS day, but it was somewhat overshadowed by the Diane Abbott farrago. They're banging on about defence today.
Redfield ramping their poll at 3pm, opinium have started the ramp trend for this GE. Apparently 'we won't want to miss this one!!' Tories minus 2 or some such.
I don't think you can actually poll a minus percentage, Woolie, but maybe Rishi intends to give it a go.
I think after today's polling rush they are going to realise just how buggered they are
AI fakes, abuse and misinformation pushed to young voters on TikTok ... Videos which have racked up hundreds of thousands of views have promoted unfounded rumours that a major scandal prompted Rishi Sunak to call an early election and the baseless claim that Sir Keir Starmer was responsible for the failure to prosecute serial paedophile Jimmy Savile. ... Other AI-generated videos share misleading claims about [Sunak's] national service pledge for 18-year-olds, suggesting young people would be sent to current war zones in Ukraine and Gaza.
Russian trolls? Bored boys in bedrooms? Party-aligned activists? They don't say. One thing mentioned that we have seen on pb is people missing satire or parody labels. Even if these are not used for plausible deniability, there is a problem.
Anyone stupid enough to rely on Tiktok for their "news" should be denied the vote.
I am neither on TikTok nor Instagram.
I can't imagine too many of the Tories core voters are.
ISTR hearing about 50% of UK adults get their news from tiktok.
I remember being dumbfounded a few years back when discussing facebook with an outwardly intelligent family member - she's an academic at Cambridge University - who told me facebook was her main source of news: essentially like minded individuals whipping each other up into paroxysms of outrage. I don't think any one political bloc has a monopoly on this.
But that is itself a sign of stupidity - limiting your news sources in this way. So she’s not that clever
There’s an interesting debate on TwiX at the moment which purports to show men are significantly cleverer than women, on average, because men are inherently more curious (there is much data to back this up). It makes sense from one perspective as curiosity is a form of intellectual risk - if you are curious you take a risk as you are going to encounter facts and news stories you do not like, which challenge your world view; men are known to take more risks, women are risk averse (for good evolutionary reasons) therefore women are less curious, therefore less intelligent and less well informed
I’m not sure I believe this proves men are smarter - I see evidence pointing the other way as well. But I do believe intellectual risk/curiosity is a crucial metric of intelligence. And a lot of apparently smart people lack it. They don’t want to know, they get all their facts from friends on Facebook. So they are much stupider than they appear
We see it here all the time. We see it also in people who refuse to travel. They are incurious about the world or scared of the risks entailed in seeing it. They are stupid in quite important ways
Certainly is stupid. I've always tried to get my news from as wide a range of sources as possible.
I've heard that marmalade is similarly going out of favour, as younger generations don't like the bitter taste
I expect another factor is that grapefruit has to be avoided by many people as it interacts negatively with a whole raft of different medications.
You could switch to eating grapefruit, which has the advantage of putting some fibre into your diet too
This is true; I’ve had to ditch grapefruit.
Suspect marmalade will make a comeback though; truly one of the most delicious substances ever wrought by human hands.
Me eldest two (6 and 4) are big into marmalade. Mostly lemon or lime, but the eldest has recently graduated to orange marmalade (I didn't like that as a kid, finding it too bitter). So there's hope*
Also, reminds me, I've not had a grapefruit for breakfast in ages. Will add it to the list.
*we need more Paddington films - and not only for marmalade promotion purposes!
I love grapefruit juice and marmalade, but I do love bitter and sour tastes.
I make my own marmalade and make it as bitter as possible. I try and get some caramelisation when cooking it by burning the bottom of the pan. Mine is pretty dark compared to the norm.
No shop marmalade is as good as homemade. same goes for pickled onions. I fill the vinegar with chills, peppercorns and coriander seeds and get a real punch.
The other thing homemade that beats shop bought is bread. I make most of my own bread. Love it. I could live on bread.
AI fakes, abuse and misinformation pushed to young voters on TikTok ... Videos which have racked up hundreds of thousands of views have promoted unfounded rumours that a major scandal prompted Rishi Sunak to call an early election and the baseless claim that Sir Keir Starmer was responsible for the failure to prosecute serial paedophile Jimmy Savile. ... Other AI-generated videos share misleading claims about [Sunak's] national service pledge for 18-year-olds, suggesting young people would be sent to current war zones in Ukraine and Gaza.
Russian trolls? Bored boys in bedrooms? Party-aligned activists? They don't say. One thing mentioned that we have seen on pb is people missing satire or parody labels. Even if these are not used for plausible deniability, there is a problem.
Anyone stupid enough to rely on Tiktok for their "news" should be denied the vote.
I am neither on TikTok nor Instagram.
I can't imagine too many of the Tories core voters are.
ISTR hearing about 50% of UK adults get their news from tiktok.
I remember being dumbfounded a few years back when discussing facebook with an outwardly intelligent family member - she's an academic at Cambridge University - who told me facebook was her main source of news: essentially like minded individuals whipping each other up into paroxysms of outrage. I don't think any one political bloc has a monopoly on this.
But that is itself a sign of stupidity - limiting your news sources in this way. So she’s not that clever
There’s an interesting debate on TwiX at the moment which purports to show men are significantly cleverer than women, on average, because men are inherently more curious (there is much data to back this up). It makes sense from one perspective as curiosity is a form of intellectual risk - if you are curious you take a risk as you are going to encounter facts and news stories you do not like, which challenge your world view; men are known to take more risks, women are risk averse (for good evolutionary reasons) therefore women are less curious, therefore less intelligent and less well informed
I’m not sure I believe this proves men are smarter - I see evidence pointing the other way as well. But I do believe intellectual risk/curiosity is a crucial metric of intelligence. And a lot of apparently smart people lack it. They don’t want to know, they get all their facts from friends on Facebook. So they are much stupider than they appear
We see it here all the time. We see it also in people who refuse to travel. They are incurious about the world or scared of the risks entailed in seeing it. They are stupid in quite important ways
Certainly is stupid. I've always tried to get my news from as wide a range of sources as possible.
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
Clacton is undoubtedly their best seat so it's strange Tice isn't standing there. Maybe because there was always an idea that Farage might slip in there.
Once went there with the eminent Shadsy, no less. Strictly business of course.
It is indeed the sort of place where Farage might slip in.
Interesting post. I have recently moved to Macc, and spent my formative years nearby.
When I grew up it was all about the Ann and Nick show - the Winterton’s represented two adjacent seats. So the idea that Macc could turn red (or be anything other than blue) seems mad to me.
But scratch the surface and you can Labour representatives in many of the council wards making up the constituencies. Labour have been more active round my way and have been knocking doors and leafleting. Even had the candidate on our road. Not got anything from the other parties yet. Not seen too many posters banners from any party yet but not been out and about too much.
The interesting thing for me is at Council level there is a strong showing for independents (my local councillors are both independents). I never know whether folk voting for them are Conservative voters on holiday or something else. If more of those voters break for Labour they should win.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate. Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL @campbellclaret 2h I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
If you want to understand just how manufactured the transgender culture war is, less than 2 years ago Kemi Badenoch was celebrating the fact that it was becoming easier to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate
Technically easier, because it could be done online - no reduction in the legal requirements, which is what ScotGov proposed, ignoring all the issues that could create.
Not quite the gotcha, is it?
Just to be clear: if you’re on the left & you’re dismissing an Equality Act amendment to protect women’s rights you don’t understand as hateful on the basis of who’s proposing it you’re as guilty as anyone of culture wars rhetoric in a sensitive debate about a conflict of rights.
Another dreadful Tory no doubt. #checks notes# leader writer for the Observer
Didn't see it but didn't Farage and Piers Morgan have a Question Time bust up in which Morgan accused Farage of 'bottling it'? Presumably Nigel was stung by this barb and has decided to fight a seat after all to show that he's brave.
I've heard that marmalade is similarly going out of favour, as younger generations don't like the bitter taste
I expect another factor is that grapefruit has to be avoided by many people as it interacts negatively with a whole raft of different medications.
You could switch to eating grapefruit, which has the advantage of putting some fibre into your diet too
This is true; I’ve had to ditch grapefruit.
Suspect marmalade will make a comeback though; truly one of the most delicious substances ever wrought by human hands.
Me eldest two (6 and 4) are big into marmalade. Mostly lemon or lime, but the eldest has recently graduated to orange marmalade (I didn't like that as a kid, finding it too bitter). So there's hope*
Also, reminds me, I've not had a grapefruit for breakfast in ages. Will add it to the list.
*we need more Paddington films - and not only for marmalade promotion purposes!
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
Clacton is undoubtedly their best seat so it's strange Tice isn't standing there. Maybe because there was always an idea that Farage might slip in there.
Yes, and he will do the media rounds pretending that he’s answering an overwhelming number of calls to stand and playing the patriotic duty card. The MSM will swallow the bullshit wholesale and the GB News anchors will line up to metaphorically fellate him. Depressing and nauseating in equal measure.
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
Clacton is undoubtedly their best seat so it's strange Tice isn't standing there. Maybe because there was always an idea that Farage might slip in there.
When is the deadline? As soon as he went on about third party “spoiler” candidates being the issue, I wondered if he would just leave it to the last second so they don’t have time to react?
Suggestions he will replace their candidate in Clacton who is in trouble for letting the mask slip and posting things that were anti-Semitic. Of course Nige isn’t immune to the odd tiny bit of racism adjacent rabble rousing.
Clacton is undoubtedly their best seat so it's strange Tice isn't standing there. Maybe because there was always an idea that Farage might slip in there.
When is the deadline? As soon as he went on about third party “spoiler” candidates being the issue, I wondered if he would just leave it to the last second so they don’t have time to react?
Labour is wrong on the law here. The Equality Act doesn’t have a clear definition of sex and this is why there are cases in regard to what it means working its way through the courts. Disappointing to see Labour spokespeople getting this critical point wrong.
Grapefruit has been tarnished by the medical evidence about enzymes, even among the unmedicated because why take a risk about vitamin absorption? But I also think decades of bad breakfast buffet juices took their toll: not fresh, reused.
As we enter week 3 of the general election campaign, here's what the Tories are still not talking about - the cost of living, the NHS, public services, housing, transport, defence, sewage in our rives and seas ...
They have nothing to say on them after 14 years in power.
So far, I haven't seen Labour say anything on them either, but that may just be because I've been busy.
The Liberal Democrats have been talking about sewage and doing press stunts.
This campaign really has been depressing for those wanting solutions to our problems.
Labour had a big NHS day, but it was somewhat overshadowed by the Diane Abbott farrago. They're banging on about defence today.
Comments
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-holds-talks-with-shein-over-potential-london-float-flk3rst8w
I didn't recall 'growlery', though.
I want one.
With HS 2 open to just north of Lichfield the journey time to London will be cut yet again, provided Avanti can find a train driver!
But there are two problems with this.
The first (and obvious) is that law dislikes ambiguity, and incorporating it into law will require a tight definition, and hence argument.
The second is more subtle. The Gender Recognition Act allows a person to acquire a gender recognition certificate (GRC) and - this is the important bit - change their birth certificate. So proving that a trans woman is a biological male *in court* poses challenges.
Eg “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”? That seminal, bogus, world-altering anti Semitic text?
“Written”, compiled and first disseminated here in Chisinau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Krushevan
According to Politico this morning, Kemi Badenoch "will play a more active role in the Conservative campaign" from now on.
But a senior Tory source tells HuffPost UK: "She needs to be locked in a fridge away from normal people."
We were talking CGT not IHT or were you just throwing that in as additional thoughts?
It's 50.5% Trump and 39.4% Biden right now, which sums to 89.4% & at least half that 7.3% should be on Kamala Harris (It's not in the betting markets)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLWKYTxLYT4
(I return after a chest infection and course of antibiotics to find that this topic of conversation is still cropping up every thread!)
I won't be going overboard though. I simply do not understand US politics any more, if I ever did.
Per the quote above re her meeting normal people - I think this is the issue which is going to be the millstone for her. She does seem to be obsessed with her culture war issues above all else and I’m not sure if confronted with voters about anything other than those topics she’s really that interested or invested. Which is a problem when you’re running the business department, and want to run the country.
With respect to CGT yes it seems sensible to keep a small annual allowance to avoid undue bureaucracy and effort for dealing with potential tax on small gains. £3,000pa seems reasonable.
For clarity, I am raising an academic/scientific point about definitions and ambiguity. Nothing at all to do with the trans debate
I guess 'biological sex' is the Conservative's equivalent of Ed Davey falling off a paddle board
ETA: Hope you're all better btw, they can be nasty.
We used to call them hermaphrodites
Sex is just as complicated as humans are. What seems a rather straightforward concept—with an unequivocal answer to the proverbial delivery room question, “Is it a boy or a girl?”—is in reality full of nuances and complexities, just like any human trait. From a biological standpoint, the appearance of the external genitalia is only one parameter among many, including chromosomal constitution, the sequence of sex-determining genes, gonadal structure, the profile of gonadal hormones, and the internal reproductive structures.
https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200711
Labour won most votes here in the locals in 2023, but by around 0.5% / 113 votes. Not a huge third party vote, except for a couple of successful Independents, probably around 10% of the vote and a Green second place finish.
Labour about 2000 votes up in Macclesfield, a similar amount down in Poynton, with the commuter village wards very balanced for how posh they are.
For a by-election I'd probably be predicting a 10%+ Labour majority, as Ind vote has tended to Labour in recent by-elections, but a GE is a slightly different beast.
Still Labour for me here, but 1/7 does not attract.
Incredible that Labour are pushing on defence and the Tories are pushing on gender reform. The entire framing of the Conservative campaign is wrong. It's not even a core vote strategy any more. There's no strategy. It's a series of wild, random announcements.
https://x.com/nigel_farage/status/1797559930393604280?s=46
If that’s what this ‘emergency announcement’ is I hope that journalists actually do their job and call him out on his opportunistic behaviour rather than constantly being dazzled by his supposed brilliance. He’s a hack like all the rest, and just as inconsistent and unprincipled. The only difference is he gets away with it in a way the main parties would not be allowed to.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/02/trump-conviction-fox-news-interview
Hunter Biden on trial in case that Republicans plan to use as a political weapon
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/03/hunter-biden-gun-trial
Zakkaira's opinion is an opinion that has no grounding in legal fact.
This where the Trump investigation started - in 2017:
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6022465/7-18-17-Cohen-Search-Warrant.pdf
Cohen went to prison for his involvement. Trump (obviously) wasn't charged at the time as he was President.
This, in a nutshell, is the difference between the Democrats and Trump's Republicans:
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1797275080705167673
"If the verdict (against Trump) is overturned on appeal, will you accept the verdict ?"
"Yes."
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4740870
There is also a case coming to the Supreme Court:
The following is from the For Women Scotland application to the UK Supreme Court and is an accurate description of what we are seeking:
This appeal raises at least the following three issues for determination by this court:
(1) The proper scope and application of the GRA 2004 and its effect on the interpretation
of other legislation governing the rights and obligations ordinarily referable to men or
women;
(2) The correct interpretation of “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 and whether the GRA
2004 deems a person with a gender recognition certificate to have the “protected
characteristic” of their acquired gender for the purposes of Part Two, Chapter 1, EA
2010;
(3) Whether, on a proper interpretation of both the EA 2010 and GRA 2004, the guidance
issued by the Scottish Minister is an unlawful encroachment on matters reserved to the
UK Parliament in breach of the limitations imposed on the Scottish Ministers devolved
competence by the SA 1998.
https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1797266347400855611
'Labour plan income tax RAID on aspirant MIDDLE classes'
Politicians much prefer taxes that don't increase the headline rate of income tax for particular people. Sadly - as it leads to the nonsense cliff edges at £50k (now somewhat improved by at least a more gradual taper) and at £100k.
And, of course, this is trans-debate. It's only a thing because of trans issues becoming so politicised. Although I did try to keep to the need for a clear definition, if used, rather than the rights or wrongs of needing/seeking a definition.
Badenoch is also Minister for Women and Equalities. Thanks once again for highlighting Labour’s complacency and indifference towards the rights of half the electorate.
Quote
ALASTAIR CAMPBELL
@campbellclaret 2h
I’m sure the world of trade and business will take note that the actual Secretary of State for trade and business has decided that the biggest issue on her agenda on her first big election outing is the weaponisation of trans rights. Anyone might be tempted to think @KemiBadenoch has less interest in the general election than the internal ideological shitshow likely to follow it.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1797542942007328991
https://x.com/campbellclaret/status/1797528321435021756
A not uncommon failing, confusing “women’s rights” with “trans rights”.
The key states are:
Pennsylvania (20 Electoral College Votes) Trump leads by average of 1.9%
Michigan (16 ECV) Trump leads by 0.8%
Wisconsin (10 ECV) Trump leads by 1.3%
There is a difference between Trump lead for AV surveys (i.e. All Voters), RV surveys (Registered Voters) and LV surveys (Likely Voters).
Trumps lead reduces by 2-3% suggesting that Trump supporters are less likely to turn out to vote.
Allowing for that differential in turnout gives Biden the above three states and 273 ECV, to Trump's 265 ECV. A very narrow win for Biden.
So currently I put it at 50/50.
However I think the trend is with Biden from recent surveys and the economy. But the June debate will be the deciding event and I think Biden will win it.
Any attempt to bag Reform voters using culture war stuff is highly risky. I'd stick with broader economic/demographic factors like inheritance, house values, even a last ditch attempt to defend their record on the NHS (massive increase in spending etc). This is where Conservative and Reform voters are most similar.
I’ll give you ANOTHER clue. It was eventually brought here to Moldova after being found on a train
Pretty sure Macc will turn; it’s precisely the sort of place that will go Labour only if it feels safe to do so; I.e the sort of seat you need to win if you’re going to win power - and therefore ixnay on the tory-um-scay.
WTF.
I've heard that marmalade is similarly going out of favour, as younger generations don't like the bitter taste
I expect another factor is that grapefruit has to be avoided by many people as it interacts negatively with a whole raft of different medications.
You could switch to eating grapefruit, which has the advantage of putting some fibre into your diet too
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2298kx71jo
Suspect marmalade will make a comeback though; truly one of the most delicious substances ever wrought by human hands.
Farage's announcement may be interesting.
"The European Union (EU) is set to fall far behind its ambitious energy transition targets for renewable energy, clean technology capacity and domestic supply chain investments, according to Rystad Energy research and modeling."
https://www.rystadenergy.com/news/eu-elections-net-zero-targets-solar-wind-hydrogen-ccus-batteries-nuclear
Apparently 'we won't want to miss this one!!'
Tories minus 2 or some such.
Apologies that my reply only passed a glancing resemblance to the English language.
1985 by-election and 1987 GE. Postal votes coz I was away at Uni.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYiZcnXrf3Y
If you want to understand just how manufactured the transgender culture war is, less than 2 years ago Kemi Badenoch was celebrating the fact that it was becoming easier to apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate
They haven't 'given up' - they are putting out policies that they think (wrongly, in all likelihood) that will get them votes.
Also, reminds me, I've not had a grapefruit for breakfast in ages. Will add it to the list.
*we need more Paddington films - and not only for marmalade promotion purposes!
THERE’S ANOTHER CLUE THERE
I make my own marmalade and make it as bitter as possible. I try and get some caramelisation when cooking it by burning the bottom of the pan. Mine is pretty dark compared to the norm.
No shop marmalade is as good as homemade. same goes for pickled onions. I fill the vinegar with chills, peppercorns and coriander seeds and get a real punch.
The other thing homemade that beats shop bought is bread. I make most of my own bread. Love it. I could live on bread.
It is indeed the sort of place where Farage might slip in.
When I grew up it was all about the Ann and Nick show - the Winterton’s represented two adjacent seats. So the idea that Macc could turn red (or be anything other than blue) seems mad to me.
But scratch the surface and you can Labour representatives in many of the council wards making up the constituencies. Labour have been more active round my way and have been knocking doors and leafleting. Even had the candidate on our road. Not got anything from the other parties yet. Not seen too many posters banners from any party yet but not been out and about too much.
The interesting thing for me is at Council level there is a strong showing for independents (my local councillors are both independents). I never know whether folk voting for them are Conservative voters on holiday or something else. If more of those voters break for Labour they should win.
Not quite the gotcha, is it?
Just to be clear: if you’re on the left & you’re dismissing an Equality Act amendment to protect women’s rights you don’t understand as hateful on the basis of who’s proposing it you’re as guilty as anyone of culture wars rhetoric in a sensitive debate about a conflict of rights.
Another dreadful Tory no doubt. #checks notes# leader writer for the Observer
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1797549966338244659
How do you serve it ?
The US presidential election is technically a general election. Would be even worse than the poll rampers.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/timetable-for-the-2024-general-election/
Just noticed that Argyll & Bute council have made a mistake on their website by writing:
"You will need to submit your nomination no later than 4pm on Friday 4 June."
https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/news/2024/may/key-dates-2024-uk-general-election
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1797550692556808197
Longer tweet explaining why clarity is required and what that would and would not do:
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1797558913698582579
Con 22.8%
Ref 11.4%
Maybe Farage thinks he could close that gap.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts