Musings. I expect the Tories to poll much better than predicted. They usually do. However. There is no discernable sign of this. They've been heading inexorably down since the Election was called. I'm struggling to believe any of the seat numbers. Frankly, under 150 seems inconceivable. And yet I am left to reflect that under 200 seemed similar a few weeks ago. I believe my competition prediction was Labour majority of 70. More significantly, perhaps, there were a handful of people on NOM when the election was called, and a couple for Tory largest Party or even majority. Are there any now?
@Mexicanpete was on here every night telling anyone who would listen that Rishi was going to take the Tories to a 1992-style Tory majority. I presume he is on the 140-1 in a big way and planning his luxury world cruise.
I haven't indulged since 12-1, so if he does come in I will treat myself to a pedalo on Roath Park Lake. I fear I am reliant on the 3m overseas Tory voters with proxy votes in every 20% or less margin constituency in the country rather than genuine domestic voters, and even that might not be enough on current polling.
I could do with a grand on at 140-1 and it coming in though.
I hadn't realised you were in Cardiff. I used to walk past Roath Park Lake every evening on the way back to Uni Hall.
I'm not now, I am in the Vale. But I still miss the tutorials in the Woodville.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
They're not in the English language
Whereas actor actress, master mistress, ploughman ploughwoman and a thousand other examples are.
Yes they are in the English language. At least according toi the dictionaries.
Got to say I think this is the "flattest" election I can remember since 2001.
Even on the Labour side it's all weirdly low key?
I'd say it's flatter, much flatter. Still nothing here, no leaflets, no canvass, no garden or window posters, nothing. It's safe Labour but the Greens always work it hard for LEs, they had multiple placards up 2 months ago. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Turnout 55 to 60%?
But it could be the most epoch making, change making result since the Great Reform Act of 1832 or the repeal of the Corn laws.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
Kinda daft not to expect CGT to go up, that's basically signalled from the lack of denial. I'm in line for at least two CGT windfalls in the next few years. The first one I might get away with as it's hopefully happening before October (although I'm not holding my breath on that). The second one - far larger - no chance, still at least a couple of years away. And may not happen. Depends on us continuing to expand and do very well at whatever it is we do well, whoever us might be. Now atm it would be subject to entrepeneur's relief. But no guarantee that would exist with Labour either.
But kicking the tories in the face remains far more important to me. Even if @kyf_100 doesn't, others will think like me too. I'm nowhere near as bothered about balance sheet as I am about cashflow. And tories have had every fucking chance, EVERY FUCKING CHANCE to sort out the various cliff edges in our taxation system which as a young father are far more important to me every day. I trust Labour to either do that (unlikely) or provide a better system for my kid+upcoming kids (more likely). If it costs me a seven or (if very lucky) eight figure sum a couple of years down the line so be it. It's for the good of the country.
Couldn't agree more on the subject of giving the Conservatives a good kicking this time round, for so many reasons.
If Labour do decide to tax CGT as income, though, it will give me the difficult choice of going elsewhere to avoid a very large tax bill, or simply holding on to my current portfolio, which may be worth nothing in five years time, but that's the risk I'll have to take.
But the really annoying thing? The really, really annoying thing? I doubt I'm in the top 10% of PB'ers by wealth, and given the demographics on here, wouldn't even bet on being in the top 25%. However many on here will be boomers sitting on £1m+ in gains through their primary residences, which will attract a CGT bill of nothing, compared to my investment activity that actually generates economic activity. I'm prepared to pay the 20%, as I said the other day, but taxing my gains at 40-45% while boomer property market gains continue to attract a 0% rate really sticks in the craw.
Most CGT rates around the world tend to be between 15% and 25%, so as not to scare off investors and harm economic activity, so 40-45% would be one of the world's highest rates, and capital flight would be inevitable. 45% of nothing is still nothing.
The type of people a 'CGT as income tax' would really hurt are small business owners who have spent their entire lives building a business and are now looking to make a one time sale to fund their retirement. People like me will either defer the tax by not selling assets (and not investing), or by leaving. Small business owners will be hit. Why should entrepreneurship be penalised?
Canada is currently going through exactly the same process, and the incoming government is looking at reversing the decision post-haste.
One tax change that has not been ruled out by Labour is reform of pension tax relief.
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.
So the end of salary sacrifice for pension contributions ?
People on the right have been talking about this for the past few weeks as if it's a certainty, but it's never been mentioned within Labour circles as far as I can see, certainly not since Starmer bedded in as leader.
Has anyone actually got any form of a source for this, or is it just doomcasting?
It's a bit like the CGT talk the other day, or CGT on main residence, part paranoia and part mischief.
Yes. For what it’s worth, I think Labour will raise taxes. Because they’ll have to. I suspect that will be CGT (not on first houses though) and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see income tax go up for higher earners (exactly how high TBC).
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.
Taxing someone when they sell a house, and have a huge dollop of cash landing in their lap, makes more sense than taxing someone when they buy a house, and need to borrow money to pay the tax.
Especially as they are not contemporaneous.
Oh hang on a minute, I've worked out why the Tories haven't taken this sensible step...
I can’t fathom why the Tories are just sitting there like a punchbag getting hit by Reform and doing nothing about it .
They seem to be avoiding aiming any major criticism at them . It’s bizarre .
Sunak is cooked, Cameron (wisely) can't really be bothered. Apparently Johnson getting recalled now. Basically he's calling a succession of former PMs to split voters perfectly between: christ I've forgotten about that Tory prick/shame he isn't still in office, he was far better
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Musings. I expect the Tories to poll much better than predicted. They usually do. However. There is no discernable sign of this. They've been heading inexorably down since the Election was called. I'm struggling to believe any of the seat numbers. Frankly, under 150 seems inconceivable. And yet I am left to reflect that under 200 seemed similar a few weeks ago. I believe my competition prediction was Labour majority of 70. More significantly, perhaps, there were a handful of people on NOM when the election was called, and a couple for Tory largest Party or even majority. Are there any now?
I was for NOM at the start of the year, and while it is not quite impossible I am glad that I didn't back my judgment with cash to any great extent. I think the chances now of the Tories getting under 60 seats are higher than NOM.
Psephologically interesting throughout and continuing is the massive range of arguable and predicted outcomes. Currently SFAICS Tories are expected to get between about 20 and about 220 seats depending on who you ask. This is strange.
I think at every election there are more polling firms. More polling firms, with more ways of torturing a dubiously-acquired sample to show a passing resemblance to reality, and so we have an ever wider range of predicted outcomes.
In 1997 there were opinion polls published by six firms from January until the election in May: Gallup, MORI, NOP, Harris, ICM and ORB (though they only published two polls, the latest on March 9th)
For the 2024 GE we have opinion polls from at least seventeen firms (not including the MRPs): BMG, Deltapoll, Focaldata, Ipsos, JL Partners, Labour Together (but only two polls, the latest in April), Lord Ashcroft (but quite different to a normal opinion poll), More in Common, Norstat (previously Panelbase), Opinium, People Polling, Redfield & Wilton, Savanta, Survation, Techne, Verian, We Think, Whitestone Insight and YouGov
Nineteen if you include Lord Ashcroft and Labour Together.
And then the MRPs. Most people would probably agree that they're overall a better way of predicting the election outcome than a traditional poll, but they still act to increase the range of uncertainty by adding further data points.
Got to say I think this is the "flattest" election I can remember since 2001.
Even on the Labour side it's all weirdly low key?
I'd say it's flatter, much flatter. Still nothing here, no leaflets, no canvass, no garden or window posters, nothing. It's safe Labour but the Greens always work it hard for LEs, they had multiple placards up 2 months ago. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Turnout 55 to 60%?
Yeah, at least 2001 had the Prezza punch up
I think a low turnout too, which is a shame.
I speculate highish turnout. The good old general public have little to say - what can one say sanely about policy and the future when the Overton window is so narrow and the practical constraints (debt, tax, spend) so great. But I feel, along with the uncertainty, that a lot of people think there is a good deal at stake and will turn out, this time to ensure that whatever happens it is not Tory continuity. The fact that possibly 80% of voters reject boring old Tory continuity is unusual.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
On the placards front... It's fascinating seeing the sporadic Labour posters turn into a horde of Orange Diamonds as my road transitions from Cambridge to South Cambs.
200 Tory seats seems a very very long way off now! 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
Are you sure? I still think 150 to 200 plausible.
I don't see where the votes come from. For 150 to 200 I'd think they need 27% minimum, if it were one or two pollsters having them under 20 then perhaps but it's 5 pollsters with the bulk of the rest very low 20s. If their VI starts to pick up ill reassess but I see zero, nada, zilch sign anyone is coming back to them......
The only plausible way I can see for Con to get 150-200 seats is for many dyed-in-the-woolie Tories who are currently saying they are going to vote Reform to go back to Con in the privacy of the polling booth.
I don't see the opinion polls shifting between now and polling day.
I think this is what will happen. As many others have said, the polls are being driven overwhelmingly by negativity towards the Tories. For natural Tories considering voting Reform for the first time, that vote won't feel real yet. I can see a really significant proportion hover over Reform but then do the small c conservative thing and, when their cross is on the line, stick with the devil they know.
But, of course, turnout matters. I think that's what will distinguish between sub-100 and 150-200.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Blond/blonde is really the only one in English.
Fiancé/fiancée and - obscurely - confidant/confidante.
As I said, many times and many months ago, they aren't shy Tories, they're shy non-Tories. People who have voted Tory so.many elections, they haven't been able to admit even to themselves that they might change this time. And now they're choosing.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
They're not in the English language
Whereas actor actress, master mistress, ploughman ploughwoman and a thousand other examples are.
To be fair, English has borrowed a lot of words from French: weekend, camping, cul-de-sac etc
The 19 seats the Tories would hold with the latest poll using Electoral Calculus.
Berwickshire Brecon Herefordshire N Droitwich Kingswinford / Staffs S Witney Melksham Dorset M Dorset N Dorset W New Forest W Romsey Hampshire E Arundel East Grinstead Weald of Kent Brentwood Maidenhead Beaconsfield
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Yes but look, a wig is blonde or blond. It doesn't change gender depending on the sex of the wearer.
One tax change that has not been ruled out by Labour is reform of pension tax relief.
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.
But that is all rather like drones in Wales. Say something very narrowly specific and complain that Labour haven't excluded that narrowly specific thing. Like the mythical drones in Wales supposedly now leering into non-innocent Tories' gardens to assess the improvements they have carefully failed to report to the valuation bureau.
Is there any evidence they have this in mind? At all? As| opposed to being a general suggestion in the Tory media?
Imagine you get tax relief at 45% or 40% on all your pension contributions. You build a pot of £1m which generates a £50k annuity. Now, you only pay 20% on the way out. Plus, you got to "borrow" the tax and get compounding returns for decades.
Practically, getting rid of 45% tax relief would be a first step. Then reducing 40% to 30%. Salami slicing. Avoids increasing incime 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.
It'll only be 20% coming out of the pension if the pensioner stays below whatever the 20% tax rate (if such it is) at the time. There's no particular reason to think that the pension tax treatment will be anything (specifically) by the time I'm taking my pension, in the unlikely event my disgraceful lifestyle lets me live that long. Hopefully similar to today's but who knows.
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.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed - and indeed pensioners currently get a larger 0% chunk, I think? But it's hard to imagine any future government charging higher rates on pensioners than employees.
Pensioners getting a larger allowance for income tax? Really? Only if above 85 or whatever it is (and of course the much-touted Sunakian but relatively small change in allowance to match basic state pension which is not yet implemented, I think). (Though NI presently has the same effect, of course.)
In 2016-7 the higher personal allowance for people born before 1938 was done away with (mainly because the standard personal allowance was increased beyond it, I think). Everyone is on the same now (unless Sunak is re-elected as PM).
Indeed so. I was, on checking, thinking of the married couple's allowance for older people.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Most grammatical rules in English are on death row. English is a language that gets grammatical rules and takes them round the back to be shot.
You can say that they still exist, but English grammar is fundamentally descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They're dead, Jim. Those grammatical rules have passed away.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Are wigs make or female? In French, La perruque, so female.
Very true, but in British grammar the gender of the blondness pertains to the gender of its beholder. I am not wig-exclusionary, I am happy to consider a wig one’s ‘hair’.
What if it's been purchased on parliamentary expenses? Isn't it our hair then?
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.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
It's also spelt танк in Cyrillic. At least the kind with tracks and a gun and armour is (even if it has a different kind of tank inside it to hold the diesel and oil).
Musings. I expect the Tories to poll much better than predicted. They usually do. However. There is no discernable sign of this. They've been heading inexorably down since the Election was called. I'm struggling to believe any of the seat numbers. Frankly, under 150 seems inconceivable. And yet I am left to reflect that under 200 seemed similar a few weeks ago. I believe my competition prediction was Labour majority of 70. More significantly, perhaps, there were a handful of people on NOM when the election was called, and a couple for Tory largest Party or even majority. Are there any now?
I'm not sure the Tories usually do poll better than predicted. Comparing the Tory actual GB vote share with the average of the last 6 polls before the GE we get:
1997 =0.0 (30.7 actual v. 30.7 poll average) 2001 +1.4 (31.7 v. 30.3) 2005 +2.5 (33.2 v. 30.7) 2010 +1.2 (36.9 v. 35.7) 2015 +3.1 (37.8 v. 34.7) 2017 -0.3 (43.5 v. 43.8) 2019 -0.6 (43.7 v. 44.3)
Two other points: The Tory vote share has increased in every election since 1997. Johnson only got a 0.2% larger vote share than May.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Most grammatical rules in English are on death row. English is a language that gets grammatical rules and takes them round the back to be shot.
You can say that they still exist, but English grammar is fundamentally descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They're dead, Jim. Those grammatical rules have passed away.
'They'/'them' - that's nominative/accusative declension right there ...
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
I think pretty much everybody understands the distinction. The issue is about quite what it all means. I've not the slightest idea.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Most grammatical rules in English are on death row. English is a language that gets grammatical rules and takes them round the back to be shot.
You can say that they still exist, but English grammar is fundamentally descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They're dead, Jim. Those grammatical rules have passed away.
You may wish it were so but that's just your subjunctive opinion.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
Yes but look, a wig is blonde or blond. It doesn't change gender depending on the sex of the wearer.
Well herein is the point, does it or doesn’t it? See my post on this topic above.
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
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.
"TERF ideology" is entirely the creation of an extremist faction of the pro-Trans lobby who had to have a nice derogatory lable to describe anyone who disagreed with their fanaticism. They are following the classic playbook of all extremists by forcing all of their opponents into a grouping which they can then attack with impunity. They create the very hatred, bullying and assaults (or threats of assault) that you claim to oppose.
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Wot?
Sex is having a dick or not. This "culturally defined" stuff is French hippie nonsense. "We used to think a bathroom was a room with a bath in it until Foucault: published his seminal paper pointing out that it was a social construct based around bourgeois expectations about the likely content of a bathroom."
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
I can’t fathom why the Tories are just sitting there like a punchbag getting hit by Reform and doing nothing about it .
They seem to be avoiding aiming any major criticism at them . It’s bizarre .
My theory - because they are so hopelessly divided that if they do go on the attack they’ll get Suella et al publicly disagreeing and another round of Tory splits headlines.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Look at the difference between those for a hard and fast rule:
Liz Truss ate a lettuce.
A lettuce ate Liz Truss.
Same elements, meaning different ... 2 would only work (outside a John Wyndham novel) in a fairly contorted poem, and even then the rule would be so strained the attempt probably wouldn't succeed.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
It is a grammatical rule. But there are so few gendered spellings that many people ignore the rule (wrongly).
No. It's not a mistake. Some style guides deliberately avoid the distinction. There's no central authority to decide that one is right and the other is wrong. Instead, there are different modes that are consciously employed. Your style guide might say it should be this way, but that's just one among many.
It is a rule of English grammar. By your token, no such rules exist at all. & wee mite ass wheel just do ass wee pleas.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Hero and heroine.
Those two (along with janitor/janitrix, masseur/masseuse etc. are more different words completely though).
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Look at the difference between those for a hard and fast rule:
Liz Truss ate a lettuce.
A lettuce ate Liz Truss.
Same elements, meaning different ... 2 would only work (outside a John Wyndham novel) in a fairly contorted poem, and even then the rule would be so strained it probably wouldn't succeed.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Hero and heroine.
Those two (along with janitor/janitrix, masseur/masseuse etc. are more different words completely though).
Fair point, but I like that you also have the gender neutral option of protagonist.
I would love if BBC or ITV went and hired the Tifo football guys or Statsbomb for a proper analysis show and to have them give some real insight (in the way we now get a ref on call to ask about difficult decisions).
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
We also not had the stupid letter writing campaigns. We had the Labour "business leaders" one but it was so laughable hopefully that has finished them off.
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Wot?
Sex is having a dick or not. This "culturally defined" stuff is French hippie nonsense. "We used to think a bathroom was a room with a bath in it until Foucault: published his seminal paper pointing out that it was a social construct based around bourgeois expectations about the likely content of a bathroom."
Are you sure? I thought sex was about mutual genital stimulation, hopefully leading to climax for both parties.
(I realize that sex can involve - on rare occasions - more than two participants.)
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
It gives enough general rules for people to communicate consistently and effectively whilst permitting sufficient flexibility to get creative, as well as upset grammar purists, who are among the best people to irritate when it comes to the more arbitrary rules.
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.
"TERF ideology" is entirely the creation of an extremist faction of the pro-Trans lobby who had to have a nice derogatory lable to describe anyone who disagreed with their fanaticism. They are following the classic playbook of all extremists by forcing all of their opponents into a grouping which they can then attack with impunity. They create the very hatred, bullying and assaults (or threats of assault) that you claim to oppose.
Have you listened to the Jon Ronson podcast about the origin of the word? (Part of his generally outstanding Things Fell Apart.)
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Wot?
Sex is having a dick or not. This "culturally defined" stuff is French hippie nonsense. "We used to think a bathroom was a room with a bath in it until Foucault: published his seminal paper pointing out that it was a social construct based around bourgeois expectations about the likely content of a bathroom."
Are you sure? I thought sex was about mutual genital stimulation, hopefully leading to climax for both parties.
(I realize that sex can involve - on rare occasions - more than two participants.)
Apparently it can involve - on even rarer occasions - more than one participant. Who knew?
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
We also not had the stupid letter writing campaigns. We had the Labour "business leaders" one but it was so laughable hopefully that has finished them off.
Apparently the Tories tried to organise one but couldn't, but they're never convincing so maybe both will learn something from it.
Most political consultants are probably just chancers who got lucky once who then just resuse old tricks and try to make common sense seem like stunning insight anyway, so they could also try saving money there.
I would love if BBC or ITV went and hired the Tifo football guys or Statsbomb for a proper analysis show and to have them give some real insight (in the way we now get a ref on call to ask about difficult decisions).
When BT get James Horncastle on it's night and day quality of analysis wise.
They should integrate it into the show - get a really good analyst on behind the scenes and then one of those youtubers who are good at explaining and given them 10 minutes pre-game to tell us what to look out for, 5 minutes at half time breaking down the strategy, then 15 minutes after reflecting on it all.
Not some has been moron yelling Ballon D'Or for 5 minutes straight.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
But what does Benedict Cumberbatch think? I will not rest until I know Stephen Fry's stance on the matter. I must know!
I would love if BBC or ITV went and hired the Tifo football guys or Statsbomb for a proper analysis show and to have them give some real insight (in the way we now get a ref on call to ask about difficult decisions).
When BT get James Horncastle on it's night and day quality of analysis wise.
They should integrate it into the show - get a really good analyst on behind the scenes and then one of those youtubers who are good at explaining and given them 10 minutes pre-game to tell us what to look out for, 5 minutes at half time breaking down the strategy, then 15 minutes after reflecting on it all.
Not some has been moron yelling Ballon D'Or for 5 minutes straight.
I don't even mind if they hire the analyst people to converse with say a Henry behind the scenes and Henry goes to the board and explains it.
I believe that is what Sky Sport Cricket does now. They have the Cricviz people on hand to prompt interesting things that they have spotted going on in the game, without them actually being on camera.
It is astounding to me how few people understand the difference between sex, which is biological, and gender, which is cultural. These are well defined terms. Gender concerns a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals. Sex is based on the biology of reproductive functions. It isn't difficult. Refusal to accept these conceptual distinctions is causing a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of the argument.
Wot?
Sex is having a dick or not. This "culturally defined" stuff is French hippie nonsense. "We used to think a bathroom was a room with a bath in it until Foucault: published his seminal paper pointing out that it was a social construct based around bourgeois expectations about the likely content of a bathroom."
Are you sure? I thought sex was about mutual genital stimulation, hopefully leading to climax for both parties.
(I realize that sex can involve - on rare occasions - more than two participants.)
(I realize that sex can involve - on rare occasions - more than two participants.)
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
This is actually a cracking question. Short answer: I'm quite libertarian in terms of language use and what constitutes right and wrong. I normally prefer to think in terms of accurate and inaccurate; if a pattern of words has a good chance of being correctly interpreted by most people who speak the language then it's accurate. Even if it's "wrong".
If you say something to me that I think sounds like a double meaning, I could ask "what are you incinerating?" Now this is "wrong" because the better word is "insinuating". And there are situations where switching the two words will create confusion. It's better to create fewer confusion, but when you do make yourself understood to all, how can it really be wrong?
Grammatical rulesets and style guides are there to guide us into patterns that minimise confusion. But they only do that by common consent. And because language evolves and because it's not under anybody's control, some grammars become less and less useful over time. I believe we're seeing that right now some gendered words: "actress" is starting to slip out of usage in some quarters. It might die out eventually. And if it does, it won't be one person or one committee that decides it. It'll be how and if people use it.
Our language is a beautiful and fragile ecosystem. It is worth doing what we can to preserve what is wonderful about it, including the ability it offers to express such a wide variety of concepts with precision and grace.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
You've forgotten about Neighbours actress Holly Valance supporting Farage's party.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
But what does Benedict Cumberbatch think? I will not rest until I know Stephen Fry's stance on the matter. I must know!
If we must have celebrity endorsements please gods no actors. Their entire job is pretending, so when they try to be sincere about politics sure it looks sincere, but you know they can fake sincerity so it counterproductively is less effective.
They're also by profession usually very confident, charismatic, and capable of being articulate without understanding what they are saying, so they can come out with some nonsense (which makes it a surprise more don't go into politics full time).
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
You've forgotten about Neighbours actress Holly Valance supporting Farage's party.
Didn't she raise them a fair few quid last week. I don't know how much of it came from her billionaire husbands wallet though.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
I remember Elvis coming out for Labour, was it 2010?
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
You've forgotten about Neighbours actress Holly Valance supporting Farage's party.
Ah yes, the star of the classic movie DOA, I had indeed forgotten.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
But what does Benedict Cumberbatch think? I will not rest until I know Stephen Fry's stance on the matter. I must know!
If we must have celebrity endorsements please gods no actors. Their entire job is pretending, so when they try to be sincere about politics sure it looks sincere, but you know they can fake sincerity so it counterproductively is less effective.
They're also by profession usually very confident, charismatic, and capable of being articulate without understanding what they are saying, so they can come out with some nonsense (which makes it a surprise more don't go into politics full time).
I wonder who Wusselly Brand is supporting this time around?
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
"Fiancé/fiancée", "blond/blonde", and "brunet/brunette" are the only three gendered nouns I am aware of in the English language, and "brunet" is dying out. Unless you know of others, of course...
Hero and heroine.
actor and actress , waiter and waitress
They are more separate words, whereas blond/blonde etc are masculine and feminine spellings of the same word.
I would love if BBC or ITV went and hired the Tifo football guys or Statsbomb for a proper analysis show and to have them give some real insight (in the way we now get a ref on call to ask about difficult decisions).
When BT get James Horncastle on it's night and day quality of analysis wise.
They should integrate it into the show - get a really good analyst on behind the scenes and then one of those youtubers who are good at explaining and given them 10 minutes pre-game to tell us what to look out for, 5 minutes at half time breaking down the strategy, then 15 minutes after reflecting on it all.
Not some has been moron yelling Ballon D'Or for 5 minutes straight.
I don't even mind if they hire the analyst people to converse with say a Henry behind the scenes and Henry goes to the board and explains it.
I believe that is what Sky Sport Cricket does now. They have the Cricviz people on hand to prompt interesting things that they have spotted going on in the game, without them actually being on camera.
Yep definitely. They may be trialing it on sky (or BT, whichever he works for) - he did a good bit on Man City's defensive shape this season, only issue is that it was about an hour after the final whistle.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
A grammatical rule not being hard and fast does not mean that no grammatical rule is hard and fast.
That is the logical outworking of picking a grammatical convention and declaring it optional in good written English. Perhaps we should all just communicate in grunts.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
The lack of celebrity endorsements so far (or at least ones trumpeted by the parties in a prominent manner, as opposed to celebrities just announcing their own intentions) has been a rare treat in an otherwise wearisome election.
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
You've forgotten about Neighbours actress Holly Valance supporting Farage's party.
Didn't she raise them a fair few quid last week. I don't know how much of it came from her billionaire husbands wallet though.
Tory wet Ed Vaizey pretty much endorses Kemi Badenoch for next Tory leader on Newsnight, despite her being not exactly on the left of the party. Interesting.
Tory wet Ed Vaizey pretty much endorses Kemi Badenoch for next Tory leader on Newsnight, despite her being not exactly on the left of the party. Interesting.
I thought you were going to say that Ed Vaizey had endorsed Starmer. And still that wouldn't have been that big of a shock news story.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
This is actually a cracking question. Short answer: I'm quite libertarian in terms of language use and what constitutes right and wrong. I normally prefer to think in terms of accurate and inaccurate; if a pattern of words has a good chance of being correctly interpreted by most people who speak the language then it's accurate. Even if it's "wrong".
If you say something to me that I think sounds like a double meaning, I could ask "what are you incinerating?" Now this is "wrong" because the better word is "insinuating". And there are situations where switching the two words will create confusion. It's better to create fewer confusion, but when you do make yourself understood to all, how can it really be wrong?
Grammatical rulesets and style guides are there to guide us into patterns that minimise confusion. But they only do that by common consent. And because language evolves and because it's not under anybody's control, some grammars become less and less useful over time. I believe we're seeing that right now some gendered words: "actress" is starting to slip out of usage in some quarters. It might die out eventually. And if it does, it won't be one person or one committee that decides it. It'll be how and if people use it.
Our language is a beautiful and fragile ecosystem. It is worth doing what we can to preserve what is wonderful about it, including the ability it offers to express such a wide variety of concepts with precision and grace.
Balls. English is one of the the most terrifyingly robust languages out there. It's like a superhero that's been bitten by a radioactive menagerie. Burrowing here, spinning webs up there, building dams all over the place. Old English was a precious little flower, full of complex conjugations. The Vikings came and hacked off the endings, then the French came and doubled up every word. Then it burst out of its host cell and infected the world, and we've all caught it.
It's magnificent because it's the opposite of what you say. English is the kind of language that will jump you in a dark alley, steal your coat, and sell it back to you.
Anyone might think Luckyguy was French or something.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
This is actually a cracking question. Short answer: I'm quite libertarian in terms of language use and what constitutes right and wrong. I normally prefer to think in terms of accurate and inaccurate; if a pattern of words has a good chance of being correctly interpreted by most people who speak the language then it's accurate. Even if it's "wrong".
If you say something to me that I think sounds like a double meaning, I could ask "what are you incinerating?" Now this is "wrong" because the better word is "insinuating". And there are situations where switching the two words will create confusion. It's better to create fewer confusion, but when you do make yourself understood to all, how can it really be wrong?
Grammatical rulesets and style guides are there to guide us into patterns that minimise confusion. But they only do that by common consent. And because language evolves and because it's not under anybody's control, some grammars become less and less useful over time. I believe we're seeing that right now some gendered words: "actress" is starting to slip out of usage in some quarters. It might die out eventually. And if it does, it won't be one person or one committee that decides it. It'll be how and if people use it.
Our language is a beautiful and fragile ecosystem. It is worth doing what we can to preserve what is wonderful about it, including the ability it offers to express such a wide variety of concepts with precision and grace.
Balls. English is one of the the most terrifyingly robust languages out there. It's like a superhero that's been bitten by a radioactive menagerie. Burrowing here, spinning webs up there, building dams all over the place. Old English was a precious little flower, full of complex conjugations. The Vikings came and hacked off the endings, then the French came and doubled up every word. Then it burst out of its host cell and infected the world, and we've all caught it.
It's magnificent because it's the opposite of what you say. English is the kind of language that will jump you in a dark alley, steal your coat, and sell it back to you.
Labour has not explicitly ruled out a window tax. Or a beard tax.
You can only be sure with the Conservatives.
The Conservatives will guarantee there will not be a Badly Fitting Blonde Wig Tax, as long a Michael Fabricant exists.
On topic(ish): it would be a Badly Fitting Blond Wig Tax unless Fabricant has transitioned?
Yebbut if you really, like, knew a totally, you know, trans person you would like totally know what a totally like bad joke that is, man. 0/10.
It’s not a joke. Simply proper grammar.
Not even that because blond/e governs the wig not the wearer of it
I argue it does not. He is blond. She is blonde. Michael has a right for his hairpiece to be considered his hair, I submit.
You do know the french for vagina is le vagin? I don't think linguistic gender works like you think
We don't have grammatical gender in English. We use blonde when referring to woman and blond when referring to men by convention, but it's not a fast rule. When used in the adjectival form, as it appears to be in this case, either is acceptable. I personally would have used "blond" here, but I don't think it's wrong either way.
But no grammatical rule is hard and fast then. So what's the point of it all!
This is actually a cracking question. Short answer: I'm quite libertarian in terms of language use and what constitutes right and wrong. I normally prefer to think in terms of accurate and inaccurate; if a pattern of words has a good chance of being correctly interpreted by most people who speak the language then it's accurate. Even if it's "wrong".
If you say something to me that I think sounds like a double meaning, I could ask "what are you incinerating?" Now this is "wrong" because the better word is "insinuating". And there are situations where switching the two words will create confusion. It's better to create fewer confusion, but when you do make yourself understood to all, how can it really be wrong?
Grammatical rulesets and style guides are there to guide us into patterns that minimise confusion. But they only do that by common consent. And because language evolves and because it's not under anybody's control, some grammars become less and less useful over time. I believe we're seeing that right now some gendered words: "actress" is starting to slip out of usage in some quarters. It might die out eventually. And if it does, it won't be one person or one committee that decides it. It'll be how and if people use it.
Our language is a beautiful and fragile ecosystem. It is worth doing what we can to preserve what is wonderful about it, including the ability it offers to express such a wide variety of concepts with precision and grace.
Balls. English is one of the the most terrifyingly robust languages out there. It's like a superhero that's been bitten by a radioactive menagerie. Burrowing here, spinning webs up there, building dams all over the place. Old English was a precious little flower, full of complex conjugations. The Vikings came and hacked off the endings, then the French came and doubled up every word. Then it burst out of its host cell and infected the world, and we've all caught it.
It's magnificent because it's the opposite of what you say. English is the kind of language that will jump you in a dark alley, steal your coat, and sell it back to you.
Anyone might think Luckyguy was French or something.
Ronnie O'Sullivan has always been pretty open about his leftish leanings. He's been honest when asked but never tried to make it part of his image for personal gain. He's also been vocal in campaigning for better prize money for the lower paid snooker pros. So. It isn't really a celebrity endorsement. More a yeah, of course, that's Ronnie. He's doesn't shirk from his beliefs, but neither does he parade them front and centre. Most snooker fans probably wouldn't know. Good on him I say.
I was musing on the frequent reports on here of Lib Dem posters appearing everywhere and being much more common than Labour or Conservative posters. My musing led me to the hypothesis that this is simply because of a general perception that Lib Dems are totally inoffensive and public display of support for them is unlikely to have any negative ramifications. Labour and Tory support, by contrast, excites more emotion and a higher risk of opprobrium, which could even manifest in graffiti or criminal damage. In short: I don't read much into the proliferation of Lib Dem posters.
Comments
It doesn't look much more than they are copy / pasting his signature onto some letters.
I also know how English gender works in the precious few gendered spellings we have, there are only a handful. Most/all cited on this thread.
Blond/blonde
Fiancé/fiancée
Confidant/confidante
Look it up!
They seem to be avoiding aiming any major criticism at them . It’s bizarre .
https://x.com/TomHCalver/status/1802744645132132510?t=Tkm8_wKxVi66_-BotIrMWA&s=19
If Labour do decide to tax CGT as income, though, it will give me the difficult choice of going elsewhere to avoid a very large tax bill, or simply holding on to my current portfolio, which may be worth nothing in five years time, but that's the risk I'll have to take.
But the really annoying thing? The really, really annoying thing? I doubt I'm in the top 10% of PB'ers by wealth, and given the demographics on here, wouldn't even bet on being in the top 25%. However many on here will be boomers sitting on £1m+ in gains through their primary residences, which will attract a CGT bill of nothing, compared to my investment activity that actually generates economic activity. I'm prepared to pay the 20%, as I said the other day, but taxing my gains at 40-45% while boomer property market gains continue to attract a 0% rate really sticks in the craw.
Most CGT rates around the world tend to be between 15% and 25%, so as not to scare off investors and harm economic activity, so 40-45% would be one of the world's highest rates, and capital flight would be inevitable. 45% of nothing is still nothing.
The type of people a 'CGT as income tax' would really hurt are small business owners who have spent their entire lives building a business and are now looking to make a one time sale to fund their retirement. People like me will either defer the tax by not selling assets (and not investing), or by leaving. Small business owners will be hit. Why should entrepreneurship be penalised?
Canada is currently going through exactly the same process, and the incoming government is looking at reversing the decision post-haste.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.167249195
Oh hang on a minute, I've worked out why the Tories haven't taken this sensible step...
In 1997 there were opinion polls published by six firms from January until the election in May: Gallup, MORI, NOP, Harris, ICM and ORB (though they only published two polls, the latest on March 9th)
For the 2024 GE we have opinion polls from at least seventeen firms (not including the MRPs): BMG, Deltapoll, Focaldata, Ipsos, JL Partners, Labour Together (but only two polls, the latest in April), Lord Ashcroft (but quite different to a normal opinion poll), More in Common, Norstat (previously Panelbase), Opinium, People Polling, Redfield & Wilton, Savanta, Survation, Techne, Verian, We Think, Whitestone Insight and YouGov
Nineteen if you include Lord Ashcroft and Labour Together.
And then the MRPs. Most people would probably agree that they're overall a better way of predicting the election outcome than a traditional poll, but they still act to increase the range of uncertainty by adding further data points.
But, of course, turnout matters. I think that's what will distinguish between sub-100 and 150-200.
Berwickshire
Brecon
Herefordshire N
Droitwich
Kingswinford / Staffs S
Witney
Melksham
Dorset M
Dorset N
Dorset W
New Forest W
Romsey
Hampshire E
Arundel
East Grinstead
Weald of Kent
Brentwood
Maidenhead
Beaconsfield
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk
Some of those look a bit dubious, such as Romsey and Dorset West.
https://www.gov.uk/married-couples-allowance
You can say that they still exist, but English grammar is fundamentally descriptive, rather than prescriptive. They're dead, Jim. Those grammatical rules have passed away.
1997 =0.0 (30.7 actual v. 30.7 poll average)
2001 +1.4 (31.7 v. 30.3)
2005 +2.5 (33.2 v. 30.7)
2010 +1.2 (36.9 v. 35.7)
2015 +3.1 (37.8 v. 34.7)
2017 -0.3 (43.5 v. 43.8)
2019 -0.6 (43.7 v. 44.3)
Two other points: The Tory vote share has increased in every election since 1997. Johnson only got a 0.2% larger vote share than May.
See also Phillip Blond vs Phillipe Blond
"TERF ideology" is entirely the creation of an extremist faction of the pro-Trans lobby who had to have a nice derogatory lable to describe anyone who disagreed with their fanaticism. They are following the classic playbook of all extremists by forcing all of their opponents into a grouping which they can then attack with impunity. They create the very hatred, bullying and assaults (or threats of assault) that you claim to oppose.
Sex is having a dick or not. This "culturally defined" stuff is French hippie nonsense. "We used to think a bathroom was a room with a bath in it until Foucault: published his seminal paper pointing out that it was a social construct based around bourgeois expectations about the likely content of a bathroom."
Liz Truss ate a lettuce.
A lettuce ate Liz Truss.
Same elements, meaning different ... 2 would only work (outside a John Wyndham novel) in a fairly contorted poem, and even then the rule would be so strained the attempt probably wouldn't succeed.
token, no such rules exist at all. & wee mite ass wheel just do ass wee pleas.
Ronnie O’Sullivan has endorsed a Left-wing election candidate ousted by Labour, ending his past support for the party. The reigning Masters snooker champion is backing Faiza Shaheen in Chingford and Woodford Green after she was dropped by Sir Keir Starmer’s party for allegedly liking online posts downplaying anti-Semitism accusations.
Liza Trussa comedit lattucam
Inflection, doncha luvvit?
Maybe political parties are coming to realise it's just dumb and exploitative. Or they are saving them for the home stretch.
I would love if BBC or ITV went and hired the Tifo football guys or Statsbomb for a proper analysis show and to have them give some real insight (in the way we now get a ref on call to ask about difficult decisions).
(I realize that sex can involve - on rare occasions - more than two participants.)
(ducks)
Most political consultants are probably just chancers who got lucky once who then just resuse old tricks and try to make common sense seem like stunning insight anyway, so they could also try saving money there.
They should integrate it into the show - get a really good analyst on behind the scenes and then one of those youtubers who are good at explaining and given them 10 minutes pre-game to tell us what to look out for, 5 minutes at half time breaking down the strategy, then 15 minutes after reflecting on it all.
Not some has been moron yelling Ballon D'Or for 5 minutes straight.
I believe that is what Sky Sport Cricket does now. They have the Cricviz people on hand to prompt interesting things that they have spotted going on in the game, without them actually being on camera.
Who told you that? Nick Palmer?
They're also by profession usually very confident, charismatic, and capable of being articulate without understanding what they are saying, so they can come out with some nonsense (which makes it a surprise more don't go into politics full time).
Stick that one in your oven!
https://esolangs.org/wiki/Ook!
He's also been vocal in campaigning for better prize money for the lower paid snooker pros.
So. It isn't really a celebrity endorsement. More a yeah, of course, that's Ronnie.
He's doesn't shirk from his beliefs, but neither does he parade them front and centre. Most snooker fans probably wouldn't know.
Good on him I say.
In short: I don't read much into the proliferation of Lib Dem posters.