Some of the left leaning journos really really don't seem to like him.
Normally at this stage of any new government, journalists are keen to stay in the good books, as they know otherwise they will have limited access for at least the next 5 years, which is a long time having to sit through press conferences etc and never be called to ask a question, get those cozy interviews, by briefed the scoop of upcoming policy, etc.
Blair had an extended honeymoon where he could get away with anything. Ecclestone for example.
Starmer has not been allowed that luxury. He's gone straight to Dodgy Dossier Blair-era disdain.
Anyway @MarqueeMark Did I see earlier that you are still wearing a posh/expensive coat you brought in 1980 (and you got complimented on by from Art Malik) ?
My hat's off to you my friend! Not for being able to buy an expensive coat without having to resort to sleazy benefactors like Keith... But for being to still get into a coat you brought nearly 45 years ago!
Anyway @MarqueeMark Did I see earlier that you are still wearing a posh/espensive coat your brought in 1980 (and you got complimented by from Art Malik) ?
My hats off to you my friend! Not of being able to buy an expensive coat without having to resort to sleazy benefactors like Keith... But for being to still get into a coat you brought nearly 45 years ago!
Please let me know your secret? 🙏
Tis true! It was always on the forgiving side was the secret....
Anyway @MarqueeMark Did I see earlier that you are still wearing a posh/espensive coat your brought in 1980 (and you got complimented by from Art Malik) ?
My hats off to you my friend! Not of being able to buy an expensive coat without having to resort to sleazy benefactors like Keith... But for being to still get into a coat you brought nearly 45 years ago!
Please let me know your secret? 🙏
Tis true! It was always on the forgiving side was the secret....
Ah... you brought "off the peg" two sizes too big? 😂
Some of the left leaning journos really really don't seem to like him.
Normally at this stage of any new government, journalists are keen to stay in the good books, as they know otherwise they will have limited access for at least the next 5 years, which is a long time having to sit through press conferences etc and never be called to ask a question, get those cozy interviews, by briefed the scoop of upcoming policy, etc.
Blair had an extended honeymoon where he could get away with anything. Ecclestone for example.
Starmer has not been allowed that luxury. He's gone straight to Dodgy Dossier Blair-era disdain.
The question is why. The media, like most of the public, were sick of the Tories and gave Labour a fairly easy time (compared to when Jezza was leader). But they get in power after their minge vase + media holding fire, and some who I would have thought would be friendly (in the way they were / would have been to Blair) are really going for Starmer day after day.
Evening all! Fun news. I wonder who she will join - she was a Corbyn critic so doubtful she joins him. Greenmentum perhaps?
Her difficulty is that she's quite left wing, so the Tories are out, and her position on trans issues makes it tricky for anyone else. My guess is she remains independent.
I do not think it matters for the next few years as she will want to look after her constituency as her priority
She's almost certainly not going to stand again. She's well into her 50s, has never seemed happy in the job, and doesn't have much prospect of getting a party endorsement. I think she's reasonably well regarded by her constituents, but it isn't enough for her to win as an independent. It all looks like a middle finger, and she'll see out her time without needing to bother with party matters.
I've just found out about RosieDuffield and her resignation letter (see https://archive.is/k08rp ). I disagreed with her on her trans views, but I was unaware she held views other than that.
Is there anywhere where Ms. Duffield gave a 20-60 minute lecture on what she believed? More generally, is there a left-wing equivalent of the PopCon/NatCon conferences?
Wow, what a letter. I saw Rod Liddle being interviewed on some channel or other and he said that Starmer wont be PM for long. I remember thinking that a ridiculous statement, but now?....
Social media is promising more Starmer relevations. IF that is true - big if - then what are they? The PM is now tottering
Quite incredible, after just 3 months and with a 170 seat majority
Social Media always promises but never delivers when it comes to these things
If there are all these skeletons in the closet for SKS why didn’t they come out before.
People on twitter need to be careful. Jenny Chapman has already received damages for an untrue allegation re her and SKS. Others may well end up suing.
I am mindful of what @TheScreamingEagles says about lawyers and I will comment no more on this aspect
However it DOES look like there is a concerted drip-drip of leaks from Number 10/the Labour elite, against Starmer. How come we KEEP getting more revelations about griftgate, day by day?
That is the classic technique to bring down a politician. You do it slowly and cruelly so they never get a chance to recover, they are always defensive, then they fall
It's how they brought down Boris, ironically
The final paragraph quoted here is very interesting.
The Blob seems to have become one of those catch-all phrases for anything someone doesn't like. If narrowly defined as the tendency of civil servants, government appointed/funded bodies to frustrate policies of elected politicians, it could make sense as a useful term.
But if it's going to include, as on previous thread, having to follow laws that are passed by elected politicians, any vested interests that resist change (which always exist everywhere), and even according to one (admittedly particularly dimwitted poster) the current elected PM, then it becomes pretty meaningless.
I would just like to see a little more professionalism from our politicians.
Which is a contradiction in my views, because I also want 'ordinary' people to be able to join parliament, not just people who spend years 'training' to become a politician.
SKS accepting these 'gifts' was utterly unprofessional of him, and one that he should have seen might cause problems in the future. As ever, he should have asked: "What would I say if my opponents did this?"
Another Russian airfield hit. *Allegedly* loads of Khinzal missiles destroyed. Though I'm unsure how reliable a near-instantaneous damage assessment is...
Another Russian airfield hit. *Allegedly* loads of Khinzal missiles destroyed. Though I'm unsure how reliable a near-instantaneous damage assessment is...
I would just like to see a little more professionalism from our politicians.
Which is a contradiction in my views, because I also want 'ordinary' people to be able to join parliament, not just people who spend years 'training' to become a politician.
SKS accepting these 'gifts' was utterly unprofessional of him, and one that he should have seen might cause problems in the future. As ever, he should have asked: "What would I say if my opponents did this?"
We've had years of knowing what he'd say. Is his problem.
I’m pretty sure the LibDems would take her in, if she wanted; there’s nothing disqualifying in her views, as far as I can see.
Not even her gender views? Are the LDs accepting of wider views on the subject?
cf. Tim Farron?
The LibDems are pretty tolerant of individual views differing from the party’s policy, provided the person’s overall politics are in the right place. As you’d expect, being liberal.
AFAICS there's quite a lot of sharp, and rather hostile, division around Trans issues.
But my main lens into that is the Lib Dem blogosphere.
I'm not sure how much that is reflected in eg the Parliamentary Party. I get the impression that they are perhaps (dons tin hat) more grown up as a party than the other opposition parties.
Some of the left leaning journos really really don't seem to like him.
Normally at this stage of any new government, journalists are keen to stay in the good books, as they know otherwise they will have limited access for at least the next 5 years, which is a long time having to sit through press conferences etc and never be called to ask a question, get those cozy interviews, by briefed the scoop of upcoming policy, etc.
Blair had an extended honeymoon where he could get away with anything. Ecclestone for example.
Starmer has not been allowed that luxury. He's gone straight to Dodgy Dossier Blair-era disdain.
The question is why. The media, like most of the public, were sick of the Tories and gave Labour a fairly easy time (compared to when Jezza was leader). But they get in power after their minge vase + media holding fire, and some who I would have thought would be friendly (in the way they were / would have been to Blair) are really going for Starmer day after day.
I would just like to see a little more professionalism from our politicians.
Which is a contradiction in my views, because I also want 'ordinary' people to be able to join parliament, not just people who spend years 'training' to become a politician.
SKS accepting these 'gifts' was utterly unprofessional of him, and one that he should have seen might cause problems in the future. As ever, he should have asked: "What would I say if my opponents did this?"
We've had years of knowing what he'd say. Is his problem.
I've seen a fair few posts on Twix which are clips of SKS lambasting the Tories for things he is now doing. It's like some weird form of self-foreshadowing...
Another Russian airfield hit. *Allegedly* loads of Khinzal missiles destroyed. Though I'm unsure how reliable a near-instantaneous damage assessment is...
Another Russian airfield hit. *Allegedly* loads of Khinzal missiles destroyed. Though I'm unsure how reliable a near-instantaneous damage assessment is...
Revenge for the double-tap on a hospital at Sumy yesterday that killed nine.
Those double-tap attacks are hideous, especially on civilian infrastructure. This is the sort of people @NickPalmer and others would deliver Ukrainians to.
Wow, what a letter. I saw Rod Liddle being interviewed on some channel or other and he said that Starmer wont be PM for long. I remember thinking that a ridiculous statement, but now?....
Social media is promising more Starmer relevations. IF that is true - big if - then what are they? The PM is now tottering
Quite incredible, after just 3 months and with a 170 seat majority
Social Media always promises but never delivers when it comes to these things
If there are all these skeletons in the closet for SKS why didn’t they come out before.
People on twitter need to be careful. Jenny Chapman has already received damages for an untrue allegation re her and SKS. Others may well end up suing.
I am mindful of what @TheScreamingEagles says about lawyers and I will comment no more on this aspect
However it DOES look like there is a concerted drip-drip of leaks from Number 10/the Labour elite, against Starmer. How come we KEEP getting more revelations about griftgate, day by day?
That is the classic technique to bring down a politician. You do it slowly and cruelly so they never get a chance to recover, they are always defensive, then they fall
It's how they brought down Boris, ironically
The final paragraph quoted here is very interesting.
It was Boris’s own side that brought him down, it will be the same with SKS if it happens here.
I'd go that there will be potential issues for underused backbench MPs.
Tony Blair spoke about that, as did commentators at the time - eg 'we need to provide out own opposition'. KS needs to find ways to use them positively, so they don't have so much plotting time.
Is there a role in working with new regional Govt structures?
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I would just like to see a little more professionalism from our politicians.
Which is a contradiction in my views, because I also want 'ordinary' people to be able to join parliament, not just people who spend years 'training' to become a politician.
SKS accepting these 'gifts' was utterly unprofessional of him, and one that he should have seen might cause problems in the future. As ever, he should have asked: "What would I say if my opponents did this?"
This sort of lark in the private sector would make you completely unemployable. Serious questions to his broader judgement. Big few years coming for the world, doesn’t fill you with confidence. And where is the holier than thou wise sage Sue Gray on all of this?
We saw similar in the last government of course. Hancock’s behaviour with contracts awarding and employing his squeeze, was typical of his general underperformance.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
Looking at her tweets (*), Sharon Davies is also a deeply unpleasant person, in my view.
(*) Which for some reason Twix seems to think I need to see...
On the conservative leadership race I read (not sure where) the party are looking at bringing forward the results so the new leader can respond to Reeves October statement
If true it makes sense, but sense and the conservatives are not very well acquainted
Spectator reporting this weekend that Shad Cabinet is very unhappy now about the decision to make this contest so long.
Making it a few weeks shorter wouldn’t have made any difference in the long run.
It was known from day one that Rishi did not want to make the budget response, which led to talk of an interim leader (Cleverly was recommended by Osborne for that caretaker role, but then he put up for the big job).
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
Some of the left leaning journos really really don't seem to like him.
Normally at this stage of any new government, journalists are keen to stay in the good books, as they know otherwise they will have limited access for at least the next 5 years, which is a long time having to sit through press conferences etc and never be called to ask a question, get those cozy interviews, by briefed the scoop of upcoming policy, etc.
Blair had an extended honeymoon where he could get away with anything. Ecclestone for example.
Starmer has not been allowed that luxury. He's gone straight to Dodgy Dossier Blair-era disdain.
The question is why. The media, like most of the public, were sick of the Tories and gave Labour a fairly easy time (compared to when Jezza was leader). But they get in power after their minge vase + media holding fire, and some who I would have thought would be friendly (in the way they were / would have been to Blair) are really going for Starmer day after day.
Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.
Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.
As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.
Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
Obviously any reasonable person cannot think that either Sir Keir or Robert Jenrick are corrupt or have been "bought". On the other hand both have allowed themselves to be tainted by accepting these donations which they were presumably aware of. Thereby showing themselves to be unfit for high office through their naivety and gullibility.
I’ve seen bribery and corruption loads of times up close. Most of the time, the individual concerned does not even recognise it as such, or realise that their choices were influenced by such “gifts”. We’re all heroes of our own story. And the hero can’t possibly be bad.
A suspicious mind might for example look at premier league refs in the same way, earning triple their usual match fee to officiate for the Saudi and UAE govts in their leagues. “I’m a professional”. Hmmm.
Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.
Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.
As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.
Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
Surely he is not being held to Branson?
Just thinking if Jenrick goes on the offensive over donations to Labour, he might find himself in a pickle.
Whoever the lucky winner is has a bit of explaining to do. As will the luckier loser.
CCHQ are charging each of the final four £50000, with the final two having to stump up another £150k for party funds.
Now it's for a respectable reason, not an apparently frivolous one, but it's a lot of wonga to find.
Don't be surprised if one of the finalists drops out to save money, and the members do not get a deciding vote. This will also solve the problem of who responds to the budget, which senior Tories claim to have only just noticed.
I know it's fashionable to find racism in everything these days, I'm not hearing it in this clip - Trump doesn't refer to her ethnicity in the clip either directly or indirectly. It's tasteless, inaccurate and no doubt offensive to the mentally ill, but racism? No.
Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.
Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.
As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.
Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
Surely he is not being held to Branson?
Just thinking if Jenrick goes on the offensive over donations to Labour, he might find himself in a pickle.
Whoever the lucky winner is has a bit of explaining to do. As will the luckier loser.
CCHQ are charging each of the final four £50000, with the final two having to stump up another £150k for party funds.
Now it's for a respectable reason, not an apparently frivolous one, but it's a lot of wonga to find.
Don't be surprised if one of the finalists drops out to save money, and the members do not get a deciding vote. This will also solve the problem of who responds to the budget, which senior Tories claim to have only just noticed.
Good morning
I wouldn't be surprised at anything the conservative party did at present !!!!!
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
This feels like a challenge to look for redeeming features for someone I hadn't heard of before.
Evening all! Fun news. I wonder who she will join - she was a Corbyn critic so doubtful she joins him. Greenmentum perhaps?
Duffield is notoriously trans-sceptical. The Green Party wouldn’t take her. Indeed, she was detested by many Labour Party members. Many on the left of the party had criticised Starmer for being too supportive of Duffield (e.g. https://labourlist.org/2024/01/rosie-duffield-investigation-allegations-transphobia-antisemitism-university-labour-clubs/ ), although others, including Duffield herself, of course, had been critical of Starmer for not doing enough to protect her from the abuse that came her way.
One possible bet to consider is Pete Buttigieg as the next Secretary of State. He seems to be in effect running the Democratic campaign behind the scenes, including doing all the debate prep. If Harris wins he'll obviously be angling for a big high-profile job, and Blinken is if not quite getting on a bit, older than Harris and Walz.
Whether he'd be any good if appointed is a different question.
Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.
Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.
As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.
Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
Surely he is not being held to Branson?
Just thinking if Jenrick goes on the offensive over donations to Labour, he might find himself in a pickle.
Whoever the lucky winner is has a bit of explaining to do. As will the luckier loser.
CCHQ are charging each of the final four £50000, with the final two having to stump up another £150k for party funds.
Now it's for a respectable reason, not an apparently frivolous one, but it's a lot of wonga to find.
Don't be surprised if one of the finalists drops out to save money, and the members do not get a deciding vote. This will also solve the problem of who responds to the budget, which senior Tories claim to have only just noticed.
Good morning
I wouldn't be surprised at anything the conservative party did at present !!!!!
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
I know it's fashionable to find racism in everything these days, I'm not hearing it in this clip - Trump doesn't refer to her ethnicity in the clip either directly or indirectly. It's tasteless, inaccurate and no doubt offensive to the mentally ill, but racism? No.
In isolation, perhaps. In the context of everything Trump has said during his political career, it would tend to perversity not to hear it.
Nasty, attention seeking transphobe. Best ignored.
Those getting all worked up about Sir Keir Starmer accepting a few freebies are going to shit the bed when they finally notice the Oswald Cobblepot figure waddling up to the opposite side of the despatch box in a few weeks’ time. Crooked as a £4 note and nasty with it too. A few suits and a pair of glasses pale in comparison.
As I've mentioned downthread, we know who Lord Alli is, so if Starmer starts spouting his talking points, we can be reasonably sure there's a debt being paid.
Meanwhile Jenrick's leadership campaign has been funded to the tune of 75k by a *completely anonymous* donor who contributed via a shell company based in the British Virgin Islands. So who has bought and paid for him?
Surely he is not being held to Branson?
Just thinking if Jenrick goes on the offensive over donations to Labour, he might find himself in a pickle.
Whoever the lucky winner is has a bit of explaining to do. As will the luckier loser.
CCHQ are charging each of the final four £50000, with the final two having to stump up another £150k for party funds.
Now it's for a respectable reason, not an apparently frivolous one, but it's a lot of wonga to find.
Don't be surprised if one of the finalists drops out to save money, and the members do not get a deciding vote. This will also solve the problem of who responds to the budget, which senior Tories claim to have only just noticed.
Elegant, though the membership really won't like being cut out of yet another leadership ballot.
(And even if Rishi doesn't even want to phone it in any more, tough. Responding to the budget is a difficult gig, and a poor performance could set the tone for the new leader. Making it Rishi's swansong was the right thing to do.)
One possible bet to consider is Pete Buttigieg as the next Secretary of State. He seems to be in effect running the Democratic campaign behind the scenes, including doing all the debate prep. If Harris wins he'll obviously be angling for a big high-profile job, and Blinken is if not quite getting on a bit, older than Harris and Walz.
Whether he'd be any good if appointed is a different question.
You never know until someone is actually in post, but he certainly has the brains, and long term interest in foreign policy - which was the subject of his undergraduate thesis. Also a linguist, which implies at least some understanding of other cultures.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
One possible bet to consider is Pete Buttigieg as the next Secretary of State. He seems to be in effect running the Democratic campaign behind the scenes, including doing all the debate prep. If Harris wins he'll obviously be angling for a big high-profile job, and Blinken is if not quite getting on a bit, older than Harris and Walz.
Whether he'd be any good if appointed is a different question.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
Can you tell the difference between saying that "transwomen are male" and "transwomen are animals"?
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
Can you tell the difference between saying that "transwomen are male" and "transwomen are animals"?
Ahem.
": to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity: such as: b : to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality"
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
The problem in the trans debate are the trans activists who want, not only to give males the right to self identify as women (fine) but also give them the legal right under the Equality Act to go into women's spaces (not fine). That is what the argument is about - not trans per se. I suspect many trans people are embarrassed by the bullying actions of the activists and just want to live in peace.
You see the same effect with Animal Rights Activists, pro Life Activists and Extinction Rebellion and those throwing paint on artworks. They passionately believe in their cause (so do I for some of them) but also believe everyone else should too and try to coerce them.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
The problem in the trans debate are the trans activists who want, not only to give males the right to self identify as women (fine) but also give them the legal right under the Equality Act to go into women's spaces (not fine). That is what the argument is about - not trans per se. I suspect many trans people are embarrassed by the bullying actions of the activists and just want to live in peace.
You see the same effect with Animal Rights Activists, pro Life Activists and Extinction Rebellion and those throwing paint on artworks. They passionately believe in their cause (so do I for some of them) but also believe everyone else should too and try to coerce them.
They do their causes more harm than good.
You're eliding two things: self-ID and toilet access.
The Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 1 says that for people with a Gender Recognition Certificate "if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman", and the Equality Act section 19 says that A must not discriminate against B if "A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The two combined allow toilet access unless shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The definition of what is a PMTOALA may rest on Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 3 "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or subordinate legislation” but IANAL.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
The problem in the trans debate are the trans activists who want, not only to give males the right to self identify as women (fine) but also give them the legal right under the Equality Act to go into women's spaces (not fine). That is what the argument is about - not trans per se. I suspect many trans people are embarrassed by the bullying actions of the activists and just want to live in peace.
You see the same effect with Animal Rights Activists, pro Life Activists and Extinction Rebellion and those throwing paint on artworks. They passionately believe in their cause (so do I for some of them) but also believe everyone else should too and try to coerce them.
They do their causes more harm than good.
You're eliding two things: self-ID and toilet access.
The Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 1 says that for people with a Gender Recognition Certificate "if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman", and the Equality Act section 19 says that A must not discriminate against B if "A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The two combined allow toilet access unless shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The definition of what is a PMTOALA may rest on Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 3 "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or subordinate legislation” but IANAL.
You are eliding self-ID with a Gender Recognition Certificate.
This Nadia Whittone person seems to be a deeply unpleasant person. Looking at her wiki page she doesn't seem to have a single redeeming feature. Sharon Davies is correct.
I've never met anyone without any redeeming features, except perhaps Zak
I've met her a few times in a work setting and she is very friendly and chatty with junior staff which is a massive redeeming feature in my book. She's just very young and right on which can come across as a bit intense to a cynical oldster like me.
That's irrelevant. It's the shite she spouts that matters.
Your original comment said you didn't think she had any redeeming features. I was saying that she does. It's a rather toxic attitude to think that people you disagree with have no good qualities.
Also the "shite" isn't necessarily shite. Whittone is correct to say Duffield dehumanises trans people. Neither woman seems capable of accepting others might have sincerely held different views. At least Whittone picks on a prominent MP with controversial opinions rather than a marginalised community.
The problem in the trans debate are the trans activists who want, not only to give males the right to self identify as women (fine) but also give them the legal right under the Equality Act to go into women's spaces (not fine). That is what the argument is about - not trans per se. I suspect many trans people are embarrassed by the bullying actions of the activists and just want to live in peace.
You see the same effect with Animal Rights Activists, pro Life Activists and Extinction Rebellion and those throwing paint on artworks. They passionately believe in their cause (so do I for some of them) but also believe everyone else should too and try to coerce them.
They do their causes more harm than good.
You're eliding two things: self-ID and toilet access.
The Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 1 says that for people with a Gender Recognition Certificate "if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman", and the Equality Act section 19 says that A must not discriminate against B if "A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The two combined allow toilet access unless shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The definition of what is a PMTOALA may rest on Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 3 "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or subordinate legislation” but IANAL.
You are eliding self-ID with a Gender Recognition Certificate.
No I'm not. My point was that those with a GRC can (at least presumptively) access the other toilet. I didn't mention self-id.
Comments
Starmer has not been allowed that luxury. He's gone straight to Dodgy Dossier Blair-era disdain.
My hat's off to you my friend! Not for being able to buy an expensive coat without having to resort to sleazy benefactors like Keith... But for being to still get into a coat you brought nearly 45 years ago!
Please let me know your secret? 🙏
She should have resigned her seat
#byelectionwithdrawal
I have responded to your comments on the previous thread on the previous thread. You can find it here: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4974433/#Comment_4974433
I have just sat thru the PopCon and NatCon conferences (at least some of them) for the Blob article and enjoyed those in a lecture format, my preferred method for delivering info. But thanks to Covid and Zoom the lecture is gradually disappearing, succeeded by the group chat or (grrr) podcasts: see https://www.youtube.com/@politicsprose/videos for examples of this trend, or compare https://www.youtube.com/@steverichards14 to https://www.youtube.com/@restispolitics .
Is there anywhere where Ms. Duffield gave a 20-60 minute lecture on what she believed? More generally, is there a left-wing equivalent of the PopCon/NatCon conferences?
But if it's going to include, as on previous thread, having to follow laws that are passed by elected politicians, any vested interests that resist change (which always exist everywhere), and even according to one (admittedly particularly dimwitted poster) the current elected PM, then it becomes pretty meaningless.
"Said one recently-departed Tory Minister"
Hahahahah. Ha.
Which is a contradiction in my views, because I also want 'ordinary' people to be able to join parliament, not just people who spend years 'training' to become a politician.
SKS accepting these 'gifts' was utterly unprofessional of him, and one that he should have seen might cause problems in the future. As ever, he should have asked: "What would I say if my opponents did this?"
https://x.com/VyshnyaOstap/status/1840172531958858092
Revenge for the double-tap on a hospital at Sumy yesterday that killed nine.
But my main lens into that is the Lib Dem blogosphere.
I'm not sure how much that is reflected in eg the Parliamentary Party. I get the impression that they are perhaps (dons tin hat) more grown up as a party than the other opposition parties.
Some autocorrect you got there...
Tony Blair spoke about that, as did commentators at the time - eg 'we need to provide out own opposition'. KS needs to find ways to use them positively, so they don't have so much plotting time.
Is there a role in working with new regional Govt structures?
We saw similar in the last government of course. Hancock’s behaviour with contracts awarding and employing his squeeze, was typical of his general underperformance.
(*) Which for some reason Twix seems to think I need to see...
A suspicious mind might for example look at premier league refs in the same way, earning triple their usual match fee to officiate for the Saudi and UAE govts in their leagues. “I’m a professional”. Hmmm.
I wouldn't be surprised at anything the conservative party did at present !!!!!
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Trump blethering about mental impairment in a way that suggests he's mentally impaired?
I'm even more shocked. Even more shocked, I tell you.
78 year old man on cusp of losing election he thought he would win easily knowing he will end up in prison if he does looks 178?
I'm past being shocked...
Whether he'd be any good if appointed is a different question.
In the context of everything Trump has said during his political career, it would tend to perversity not to hear it.
NEW THREAD
(And even if Rishi doesn't even want to phone it in any more, tough. Responding to the budget is a difficult gig, and a poor performance could set the tone for the new leader. Making it Rishi's swansong was the right thing to do.)
Also a linguist, which implies at least some understanding of other cultures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0LoLdjGy9o
": to deprive (someone or something) of human qualities, personality, or dignity: such as:
b
: to address or portray (someone) in a way that obscures or demeans that person's humanity or individuality"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize
Fits well IMV.
You see the same effect with Animal Rights Activists, pro Life Activists and Extinction Rebellion and those throwing paint on artworks. They passionately believe in their cause (so do I for some of them) but also believe everyone else should too and try to coerce them.
They do their causes more harm than good.
The Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 1 says that for people with a Gender Recognition Certificate "if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman", and the Equality Act section 19 says that A must not discriminate against B if "A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The two combined allow toilet access unless shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The definition of what is a PMTOALA may rest on Gender Recognition Act section 9 para 3 "Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or subordinate legislation” but IANAL.