Categories
A point of agreement – politicalbetting.com
A point of agreement – politicalbetting.com
If you want to understand (and you really should want to) how gender ideology – the belief that men can turn into women simply by saying so based on some internal feeling they have – captured so many public institutions and members of the political class in recent years, how, in particular, it led to the Gender Recognition Reform Act in Scotland (blocked by the UK government), how Scottish women mobilised and fought back against it and the price they paid – and are still paying – for doing so, you should read “The Woman Who Wouldn’t Wheesht“, edited by Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Susan Dalgety. It tells the story of some of the very many women involved in the campaign to stand up for women’s rights, is well-written, infuriating, inspiring and so very very necessary.
Comments
and agree
Thank-you for the header.
I can only admire your optimism.
But to claim male and female sexual preferences are entirely learned behaviour is ridiculous. Even in those polyandrous Nepalese/Tibetan/Whatever tribes there are very predictable differences in behaviour.
"ENERGY PRICES POINT TO AN EARLY GENERAL ELECTION
One of Rishi Sunak’s five pledges is to halve inflation this year. It was an easy pledge to make. The CPI was always going to fall rapidly so long as energy costs did not rise even further above their extraordinarily high levels of the past winter.
We can predict energy price inflation some way in advance, based on what happened to prices 12 months ago. As energy has a major impact on the CPI, that gives us a good idea of what will happen to the CPI generally. The fall in the April CPI to 8.7% (10.1% in March) was entirely down to measuring the current energy price guarantee price of £2,500 relative to the £1,971 price cap of April 2022 instead of the much lower March 2022 figure of £1,277. The only surprise was that the fall was not even larger, inflation in other sectors being unexpectedly high.
We now know that the energy price cap is to fall back to £2,074 for at least 3 months from July 2023, with analysts predicting a longer period of stability. If so, from the October 2023 CPI, energy prices will then be 17% down from a year earlier, compared to the year-on-year increase of 27% still contributing to the April 2022 CPI.
So when planning the timing of the general election, Sunak knows that energy price base effects will push down headline CPI rates the most from October 2023 onwards. But that significant and beneficial base effect can be expected to end with the June 2024 CPI. Energy price base effects will once again be pushing up inflation from the July 2024 CPI onwards.
The July 2024 CPI will be published in late August 2024. That’s a strong reason for Sunak to hold the general election before then.
Wulfrun Phil"
Also very disappointed in Cashman who I have previously admired.
Oh, wait. The chart is upside down. Sorry guys!
This is an issue led by non-politicians that politicians then protest about . As opposed to say taxation that politicians lead and non-politicians protest
BTW if you strip out the lunacy, sort out the costings, abandon the fantasy and conspiracy based stuff, sort out how long it all takes, expressed it all as long term aspirations and adopt a non populist style, (about 50 to 60% would have to go) what is left would form the basis of a reasonably respectable fairly right wing Tory manifesto.
I'm inclined to draw a parallel with some religious converts who adopt an extreme version of their new worldview, in part because they do not have a version of their new religion which has had time to grow up and mature as would happen in a family setting, perhaps also in part because they are keen to prove their enthusiasm.
In 2010 Clegg was taking votes from both other parties. In 2024 Reform is disproportionately taking votes from Con so their decline would lead to swingback.
I don't believe for a moment that Starmer has convinced them to be nice, and clearly 'rational' was never on the agenda. So the riddle is a big one - where are they?
The soft left is more interesting though. They are definitely positioning for more influence later in the parliament.
Gender ideology is not 'the belief that men can turn into women simply by saying so based on some internal feeling they have' - but rather stems from the much earlier strain of feminist thought that much of what has been traditionally regarded as biological differences between men and women are actually socially constructed. Hence Simone De Beauvoir's famous quote that one becomes, rather than is born, a woman.
Furthermore, a great many 'gender critical' types are biological essentialists precisely because they believe the 'biological differences' between men and women allow for discrimination - they are the tradcons who literally think women are inferior to men and belong in the kitchen or raising babies. Those are the fellow travellers with whom TERFs cavort.
On the subject of people being able to live their lives without bullying and violence, I certainly agree. TERF ideology legitimises hatred, bullying, assault, and sexual assault against transgender and gender noncomforming people. You are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted as a trans woman than as a cis woman, and I would remind you again that trans women in particular are far more likely to be the victims of hate crime than the perpetrators, and remain more discriminated against in society than "the women who weesht". Women face appalling levels of violence and abuse. Trans women receive as much, if not more. This is an argument for solidarity, not biological essentialism.
Of course, politicians should be allowed to express their views without fear of violence. For example, last week I (and many others) condemned the milkshaking of Nigel Farage, despite finding him an odious little shit. However like Farage, TERFS use their platform to incite hatred against minority groups, bringing us back to the old question of 'how far is free speech allowed to go before it becomes hate speech?' I don't have an answer to that question, because I'm a bit of a free speech absolutist, and I'd rather exist in a world where people are free to spout off any old nonsense they like and have their ideas challenged through intellectual debate.
But turning trans and gender nonconforming people into the latest outpost in a culture war driven largely by the far right, has made life much more dangerous and unpleasant for an already marginalised group who mostly just want to get on and live their own lives. There are definitely some trans activists out there who have been radicalised as a result. But then again, you might be radicalised if politicians were on the TV denying your very existence and stirring up hatred and bigotry against you.
I condemn political violence in all its forms, whether that's a trans activist threatening a politician, or a TERF stirring up hatred that leads to a trans person being assaulted or worse.
Men read military history; women read romantic fiction
Men fancy themselves as soldiers; women imagine themselves as beauties
Both are fantasies, both are eternal, both are corrosively intoxicating
That’s so fucking good I might start a novel with it. It’s Tolstoyan. Except it’s better than Tolstoy. All that “happy families are the same” shit. Or is it the other way round?
WHO CARES. MINE IS BETTER
Trans identification is associated with a number of other things including neurodivergence, and this can express as aggression and rigidity. I don't think synthetic hormones help either.
The general suggestion is that tax relief on higher rate tax be ended and it limited to essentially a credit of 20% against tax liability or even 25% so that lower paid workers get a boost.
There is something quite seismic about this that buy to let landlords are well aware of. Such a change would end the tax exempt status of pensions.
Sure, a tax credit of 20% against tax on pension contributions would on the face of it mean anyone on basic rate tax paid no more, but it dosent.
Currently Pension contributions are not taxable income. So they don't count towards means testing on Universal Credit, they don't tip you over the higher rate tax threshold, they don't count towards the student loan repayment threshold, or parental means test, they don't count towards tipping you over the £100k childcare payment limit etc.
Change it to a 20% credit and every penny of those pension contributions becomes taxable income.
So, for example, someone earning £55k and paying £6k pension is now earning £56k taxable income. So they get a 20% credit on that £6k but as it is in the 40% band they still pay 20% tax on it (£1,200) and lose the marriage allowance.
It is worse than that though. That £5k is probably matched by an employer £5k contribution, if that is now taxable income with a 20% credit then he pays another £1,200 tax for the benefit in kind from his employer.
Plus he has two children. His income is now £62,000, so 10% of the families child benefit is clawed back.
It is a similar story for the family on £33,000 who pay £3,000 towards pension and get £3,000 matching payment from employer. Both are "refunded" by the new 20% tax credit but the taxable income has gone up from £30k to £36k.
So income £6k higher for Universal Credit means test. Universal credit taper rate is 55%. So £3,300 hit.
Gets worse though. He has a student loan. So 9% repayments on that £6,000 too. Another £540 gone.
Clever!
Lol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy00dgr4yjvo
Has anyone actually got any form of a source for this, or is it just doomcasting?
It's the hope I cannot stand.
And there is none.
Is there any evidence they have this in mind? At all? As| opposed to being a general suggestion in the Tory media?
Did they spend all this time for the other minor parties when they launched?
No.
The Subsamplers and the Policy Fabricators might fit in nicely.
Far more plausible that if the Tories were reelected Braverman or some other loopy right-winger would be installed PDQ.
But a lot of this stuff reads like pie in the sky doom-mongering and I see little evidence of it being attractive to an incoming government. Disincentivising pension saving and lumbering homeowners with a sales tax are going to be fundamentally unpopular to huge chunks of the electorate. I just can’t see it.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
Practically, getting rid of 45% tax relief would be a first step. Then reducing 40% to 30%. Salami slicing. Avoids increasing income tax rates.
Governments should encourage pension saving to prevent state-reliance in old age. But it might not be in the interest of government to make pensioners rich.
This tory is relaxed about it. But then, this tory doesn't earn enough to pay higher rate tax.
The point is to be a tax free untouchable savings vehicle. If you don't want it to be so then that's absolutely fine as a political choice (although I disagree). But don't get today's pensions savings policy mixed up with the future's pension taking policy cause you've no idea what that'll be.
100 in the balance I'd say. They desperately need to start bagging 'stop the landslide' votes but I just don't see it happening. They are just toxic
I think it is only the complications mentioned above that have stopped it happening already
BRACE.
There's clearly been a decision made to avoid an all-out attack on Refuk. I suspect that's wise - they want the Faragasm to dissipate, and boredom is probably the best way to encourage that.
Polling of attitudes shows that Labour MPs were as left wing economically as members, and more liberal, even when Corbyn was in charge. They just appear to be more aware of the need to get elected, and speak to enough people from across the spectrum, to realise that most people are more central than they are.
Beyond that- the actual left MPs who were in thrall to Corbyn. Just look at the size of the Campaign Group before Corbyn's leadership. He only put himself forward as leader, because the other 3 had already had their turn!
They managed to get a few more elected in 2017/19, and there are now about 30 of them listed, but a good proportion of those have already been deselected, had the whip removed, or aren't standing again. Given that their twitter membership list still included Corbyn, and Claudia Webbe, it looks like they're not particularly active. The rest, I imagine will be keeping their heads down, or will have come on board with Starmer.
Issues like the 2022 Stop the War letter about NATO probably helped keep people in line. 11 of them signed that, and within hours withdrew their names. Clearly even John McDonnell has realised things have changed, and the old tolerance of dissent has been replaced by an almost immediate threat of the whip being withdrawn.
There are principles, and there are £90k jobs.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/
Perhaps.
Every cloud had a silver lining Casino.
It will soon be all over...
Anyone who knows a trans person should understand that (*). It is quite a staggering misrepresentation (and subtle demonisation) of trans people.
All threats are wrong. Cashman's tweet was wrong. Incidentally, Duffield is not the first candidate this election to cancel hustings due to safety concerns (1), and some MPs have decided not to go for re-election because of threats, e.g. Mike Freer. The issue is much wider than anti-trans, and should be seen as such.
(*) It also ignores female-to-male transmen
(1): https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/zeichner-rejects-hustings-over-safety-concerns-9369494/
If their VI starts to pick up ill reassess but I see zero, nada, zilch sign anyone is coming back to them......