@Leon I have a mate at work who fancies himself as a bit of a traveller. He’s off to Japan in a couple of weeks. Do you have any recommendations? Ideally something that might stretch him a little.
I’m sure we will ignore the fact that KS’s ratings have been going up for several polls in a row now.
He said he’d be happy to be unpopular if it meant doing stuff. Right now Badenoch hasn’t actually proposed anything.
His ratings have gone from dire to appalling.
A PM really shouldn’t be cratering this badly four months into his premiership.
I think he’s making unpopular but necessary decisions. He said he was prepared to do it, the Tories ducked them.
So if they end up working he will get rewarded, otherwise he won’t and he will be out. Personally I think he will be re-elected at this stage but I’m only saying that because of how much of a mess the Tories made - that may change with Badenoch.
The Tories still can win my vote and many in the centre/centre left but they need to propose something for people under the age of 60. Right now they offer nothing.
Right now, they have only just elected a new leader.
I was as stridently critical of Starmer for not saying what he was going to do before the election as anyone - but I didn't start in his first couple of weeks!
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
My regular comment - don't decommission, just fill them with small reactors. All the safety protocols, grid connections, and the workers are already in place.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Keir Starmer will announce a stringent new climate goal for the UK on Tuesday, the Guardian can reveal, with a target in line with the advice given to the government by its scientists and independent advisers.
The UK will pledge to cut emissions by 81% compared with 1990 levels by 2035, a target in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.
The goal would be achieved by decarbonising the power sector and through a massive expansion of offshore wind, as well as through investments in carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy.
Complete masochistic lunacy. We already have some of the most expensive energy in the world, now Free Gear and Mad Ed want to make our position even worse. Households will be shafted and nobody will want to make anything here. The Chinese are building dozens of new coal power stations and Trump will take America in the opposite direction so the US will boom further as a result. So their decision won't have the slightest effect on climate change. But our moronic government will at least be able to float on a cloud of smug.
We need to scrap Net Zero madness while we still have an economy left.
Congratulations on a take which is nonsensical at best and plain bonkers at worst.
We need to generate electricity. We can’t burn coal as we don’t have any, so we can’t copy the Chinese. We burnt off much of North Sea gas already. We’re functionally incompetent when it comes to building nukes. What we do have is wind. What you propose is that we ignore our abundant natural resource and instead be reliant on very expensive foreign resources. Great plan man.
We aren't functionally incompetent at building nukes - we just aren't given Rolls Royce the orders we should have given them 3 years ago.
What we are incompetent at is managing projects - Hinkley Point C is built to a working French design but we insisted on a whole set of changes and other insane rules such as (supposedly) having both analogue and Digital monitoring of all sensors.
No, we're incompetent at the due process in initiating and approving projects.
The examples you give there are both how the Government insist on a full tender and procurement evaluation before awarding anything to Rolls Royce (that will need to satisfy all sort of criteria) and how our own regulatory bodies insisted on all sort of changes to a functional design to get it "as safe as reasonably practical" (the last two words doing an awful lot of lifting.
We are actually quite good at managing projects.
I will say HS2 and leave things there.
HS2 is what happens when the politicans start to micromanage the project stage by stage, rather than giving the professionals a scope and and a budget, then letting them get on with it.
So we are incompetent at initiating approving and running projects due to micromanagement at every stage.
I did go hunting for a large private sector project that delivered on time and to budget - looking at football stadiums I think the only one where that was true was the Emirates..
That's far from always true. The Huntingdon to Cambridge A14 upgrade was a large project at £1.5 billion. It was completed six months early and, AIUI, at cost.
Yes - and a hell of a lot better after.
But we simply don't see the projects that deliver on time and on budget. Locals get to see them, but probably don't think much about it. Projects are only really newsworthy when they're going wrong side up.
I’m sure we will ignore the fact that KS’s ratings have been going up for several polls in a row now.
He said he’d be happy to be unpopular if it meant doing stuff. Right now Badenoch hasn’t actually proposed anything.
His ratings have gone from dire to appalling.
A PM really shouldn’t be cratering this badly four months into his premiership.
I think he’s making unpopular but necessary decisions. He said he was prepared to do it, the Tories ducked them.
So if they end up working he will get rewarded, otherwise he won’t and he will be out. Personally I think he will be re-elected at this stage but I’m only saying that because of how much of a mess the Tories made - that may change with Badenoch.
The Tories still can win my vote and many in the centre/centre left but they need to propose something for people under the age of 60. Right now they offer nothing.
Right now, they have only just elected a new leader.
I was as stridently critical of Starmer for not saying what he was going to do before the election as anyone - but I didn't start in his first couple of weeks!
There is no point at this stage, this far out, and with Trump about to cause an earthquake through the political establishment
Kemi needs this time to establish her presence as the person who can gain the country' trust and by holding Starmer and labour to account
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
Completely destroyed it to the extent that they were a 1.5% swing from being the only incumbent government in 2024 to win an election?
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Yes he’s a Republican activist, and you may not like him, but is he wrong?
President-elect Donald Trump is expected to be name Florida congressman Michael Waltz as the next national security adviser, two sources familiar with the matter told CBS News
Good good. Last week he said we need to be much harder on Russian sanctions and those who are buying his oil, while letting Ukraine do what they wish with American weapons, in order to force Putin to the negotiating table from a point of weakness. https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1856166839794933992
And as a counterpoint to this, to show how the administration is going to go:
Musky Baby replied "Interesting" to a post proclaiming: "Jeffrey Sachs explains how the US and NATO provoked the war in Ukraine."
Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink, and this has been ongoing, his position is just that he wants the war to end as a priority, and that he doesn't support a return to the 2014 borders - a legitimate position, even though it is one that you don't agree with.
He really did not play a huge role. His role was tiny when compared to (say) Boris Johnson. Yes, and I mean that.
Yet again, people believe Musk's own hype.
Since he lacks the control of the sixth biggest military on the planet, has no standing army, or billions of munitions, of course his contribution will be less than the British Prime Minister.
He is the richest man in the world, and idiots listen to his every pronouncement. The statement was: "Elon Musk undeniably played a huge role at the start of the conflict in supporting Ukraine through the provision of Starlink,"
My argument is that the statement is bullshit, for a number of reasons. What Ukraine needed at the start of the conflict was weapons, and it was those weapons - and the international support - that allowed their brave fighters to drive Russia out of much of Ukraine in early 2022. Musk was not there telling Russia to get out; AFAICR he was remarkably quiescent.
Finally: Musk is parroting Russian and tankie propaganda. It is untrue, and does nothing to help Ukraine.
Anyone who believes NATO and the US 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine is either a blithering idiot, or someone who is knowingly doing Putin's evil for him.
Has Musked said anything Tankie related?
He agreed (*) with the suggestion that the US and NATO 'provoked' Russia into invading Ukraine. That is a classic tankie line, that gives Russia no agency and blames us for Putin's evil.
(*) I take responses such as 'interesting' as lily-livered agreement. If he felt it was wrong, he should have said so.
It's not quite what you said at the beginning though, is it? You only clarified when I asked what he said. For none state actors he was the first in there at the beginning with starlink. If he's the richest, can we go down the list of other rich people, and see at what point we get to somebody else? Or corporations who were too busy not wanting to lose their investments as a result of state sanctions.
I think 'interesting' is a low bar to call someone a tankie. It is quite possible of course his position has changed on Ukraine. It is a partisan issue in the US unlike here, but then despite what we have been doing, the heavy lifting has come from the american taxpayer.
You’re confusing me with Josias there. Yes IMHO Musk’s efforts with Starlink were critical to the Ukranian military in the early stages of the war, and continue to be today.
Even if true (it isn't), he's doing massive harm to Ukraine now.
By giving them thousands of satellite internet connections for military use?
Meanwhile, Trump is about to appoint a security advisor who favours letting the Ukranians bomb the hell out of Russian infrastructure and intends to drag Putin to the negotiating table from a position of weakness.
We're talking about the start of the war.
Answer this: how is Musky Baby parroting Russian propaganda helping Ukraine?
I know this might seem petty but any chance you could stop calling him “Musky Baby”. For some unknown reason it makes my skin crawl.
Maybe, if you want to be derogatory, rename him something that reflects a bad side of him - Elon Muscovy perhaps. But please not Musky Baby. Thanks
Nah. I use it because it highlights an important part of his character. If you don't like it, you know where the door is. ---->
Um, what part of his character is being highlighted by calling him “Musky Baby”?
Sounds like a dad in Happy Days talking to one of the Fonz’s out of town friends in an attempt to be down with the youth.
Nothing says down with the youth more than references to a 1970s sitcom. More like centrist dadgrandad great-grandad.
Reminds me of "Santa Baby" - definitely comes across as a term of endearment.
I don't know that "endearment" is quite the word that fits the sugar daddy relationship depicted in that song...?
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
Although, the oft-touted story of little Johnny going to school, where he had surgery and came home little Jane, was such an egregious lie that the Democrats might have rightly expected the voters to see through such mind-blowing gullibility.
I think the only way to fight Trump was to tell equally egregious lies. "These top 1,000 employers will go bust within 6 months of another Trump presidency..." At least some of these might well have come true. "Oh look, two days in and TGI Fridays has already filed for Chapter Eleven bankruptcy..."
The first SRN mast has been built by O2. This is real rural levelling up, providing coverage where it never was before.
And to their credit, started by the Tories.
We went by train from Llandudno to Manchester yesterday and it was noticeable just how many new homes are in construction and of course all started long before labour came into office
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Problem is, this reply is exactly what Kirk is criticising. A message can be useful to hear even if the messenger is a loon.
I would argue there is a separate problem - Rogan has a huge amount of power to amplify certain voices. In specific cases (Trump's interview, for a recent example) his popularity skews things in certain directions. I'm not sure this is intentional by Rogan, not do I think this is his fault, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
I would like to live in a world where Rogan can interview anyone and both Rogan and his listeners can hear messages critically, forming their own opinions rather than taking on the views of those with loud voices in a sheep-like manner.
I'm not sure that's how the world works, though. Attempting to cancel Rogan et al may make the situation even worse.
As a fallback I'd like to keep living in the world where media organisations were held to standards of impartiality in broadcasting but this world has been dismantled rather well, not least by the Tories with respect to the BBC. In hindsight I think it might sit alongside calling the Brexit referendum without a plan as their greatest misstep.
Rogan also went out of his way to avoid negatively commenting on Harris directly, and offered her his platform should she wish to turn up.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
No trans women took part in the Olympics boxing....................
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
Completely destroyed it to the extent that they were a 1.5% swing from being the only incumbent government in 2024 to win an election?
"Completely destroyed" is an exaggeration I agree. But what would the margin have been if the GOP had run a candidate other than Trump, I wonder ?
Mr Horse thinks madcap left identity politics is over - it isn't but we are past its peak. As it dwindles further we will look back on the last ten or so years with disbelief and the stench of it will envelope the Dems for some time yet.
@Leon I have a mate at work who fancies himself as a bit of a traveller. He’s off to Japan in a couple of weeks. Do you have any recommendations? Ideally something that might stretch him a little.
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
Brilliantly articulate essay. Much to agree with, much to disagree wirh. But all of it beautifully angry and eloquent
This is the key phrase from Harris, just before he weighs in with his own hot take: everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday.
Did you read the article? He put it down to a huge variety of things. He discussed trans, but only really as it was symptomatic of a wider issue, and he didn't even claim that that wider issue was the whole point.
I pretty much agreed with every paragraph - with the exception of the sentence "Of course, I blame Trump and social media for how divisive our politics have become" - which made me think, no, you've just spent many good and interesting paragraphs demonstrating the extent to which the far left and the left bear responsibility for this. Trump is the reaction to 15 years of increasing insanity on the left.
But aside from that quibble - an excellent essay, and worth ten minutes of anyone's time.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
Would've been £600 without him
But seriously, it's why REMA is the most important thing the government needs to get right. We can't have our energy bills set by gas wholesale forever.
Betfair is down so any PBers who backed, say, the Dem to beat Kari Lake will not be able to see if they've been paid yet.
We're currently improving our site by carrying out planned maintenance work. We're working to get the site back for 11:00 BST .
Quarter past and Betfair is still down. One can't help suspecting this planned maintenance was planned about ten minutes after something crashed. Their TwiX is now guessing half past eleven but they've not updated the site message.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
The dam has to be broken though. Was Cass the key moment? Not sure.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
Completely destroyed it to the extent that they were a 1.5% swing from being the only incumbent government in 2024 to win an election?
"Completely destroyed" is an exaggeration I agree. But what would the margin have been if the GOP had run a candidate other than Trump, I wonder ?
Mr Horse thinks madcap left identity politics is over - it isn't but we are past its peak. As it dwindles further we will look back on the last ten or so years with disbelief and the stench of it will envelope the Dems for some time yet.
Its hard to tell. Trump is uniquely liked and disliked, both with intensity. I suspect a Haley type candidate would have done much better, DeSantis a little bitter but perhaps a Vivek Ramaswany or Mike Pence would have lost for different reasons.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
Brilliantly articulate essay. Much to agree with, much to disagree wirh. But all of it beautifully angry and eloquent
This is the key phrase from Harris, just before he weighs in with his own hot take: everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday.
Did you read the article? He put it down to a huge variety of things. He discussed trans, but only really as it was symptomatic of a wider issue, and he didn't even claim that that wider issue was the whole point.
I pretty much agreed with every paragraph - with the exception of the sentence "Of course, I blame Trump and social media for how divisive our politics have become" - which made me think, no, you've just spent many good and interesting paragraphs demonstrating the extent to which the far left and the left bear responsibility for this. Trump is the reaction to 15 years of increasing insanity on the left.
But aside from that quibble - an excellent essay, and worth ten minutes of anyone's time.
Yes I read the article, which is how I was able to quote from it.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
Or people are attaching their wishes to an election result. If it was as simple as you say the Tories would have been re-elected but they did disastrously. Why? Mainly inflation, same reason as in the US.
The first SRN mast has been built by O2. This is real rural levelling up, providing coverage where it never was before.
And to their credit, started by the Tories.
We went by train from Llandudno to Manchester yesterday and it was noticeable just how many new homes are in construction and of course all started long before labour came into office
Isn't housing devolved, and has not Labour always been in office in Wales ?
(Do they all have sprinklers?)
On the Manchester side, I think that is Mr Burnham.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
Completely destroyed it to the extent that they were a 1.5% swing from being the only incumbent government in 2024 to win an election?
"Completely destroyed" is an exaggeration I agree. But what would the margin have been if the GOP had run a candidate other than Trump, I wonder ?
Mr Horse thinks madcap left identity politics is over - it isn't but we are past its peak. As it dwindles further we will look back on the last ten or so years with disbelief and the stench of it will envelope the Dems for some time yet.
Did identity politics feature much in GE24? Correct me if I am wrong but it didn’t feature as much as GE19?
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
It was, and remains, a more nuanced argument than either you or some of your opponents on here intimated over the last 18 months.
Where I agree with you, though, is that the nuance has successfully been crowded out of public political discourse, particularly in USA. I suspect we disagree over who is primarily at fault for this.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
What a triviality, though. If someone here, or anywhere else, calls me Miss instead of Mr I don't give a monkey's because I'm a grown-up.
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Problem is, this reply is exactly what Kirk is criticising. A message can be useful to hear even if the messenger is a loon.
I would argue there is a separate problem - Rogan has a huge amount of power to amplify certain voices. In specific cases (Trump's interview, for a recent example) his popularity skews things in certain directions. I'm not sure this is intentional by Rogan, not do I think this is his fault, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
I would like to live in a world where Rogan can interview anyone and both Rogan and his listeners can hear messages critically, forming their own opinions rather than taking on the views of those with loud voices in a sheep-like manner.
I'm not sure that's how the world works, though. Attempting to cancel Rogan et al may make the situation even worse.
As a fallback I'd like to keep living in the world where media organisations were held to standards of impartiality in broadcasting but this world has been dismantled rather well, not least by the Tories with respect to the BBC. In hindsight I think it might sit alongside calling the Brexit referendum without a plan as their greatest misstep.
There are a lot of messages from a lot of messengers in the world. I think it's a useful heuristic to focus on people who aren't loons rather than people who are loons. I have attended to Kirk's message here and it's bollocks. It's not a useful point. It's part of a self-reinforcing right-wing grifter philosophy, not some grand insight into a true phenomenon.
Kirk praises being open-minded, but then characterises anything he doesn't like as "propaganda". This is typical hypocrisy from the US right. They don't believe in free speech and being open-minded. Free speech is very selective for the likes of Kirk: everyone should be forced to listen to anti-vaxxers, but someone criticising anti-vaxxers should be cancelled.
The problem with being open-minded is if your brain falls out, as the late, great Daevid Allen said. (OK, he wasn't the first to say it.)
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
What a triviality, though. If someone here, or anywhere else, calls me Miss instead of Mr I don't give a monkey's because I'm a grown-up.
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Yes he’s a Republican activist, and you may not like him, but is he wrong?
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
What a triviality, though. If someone here, or anywhere else, calls me Miss instead of Mr I don't give a monkey's because I'm a grown-up.
Equally, if someone chooses to inform you of their pronouns is this something to get upset about?
The first SRN mast has been built by O2. This is real rural levelling up, providing coverage where it never was before.
And to their credit, started by the Tories.
We went by train from Llandudno to Manchester yesterday and it was noticeable just how many new homes are in construction and of course all started long before labour came into office
Isn't housing devolved, and has not Labour always been in office in Wales ?
(Do they all have sprinklers?)
On the Manchester side, I think that is Mr Burnham.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
Brilliantly articulate essay. Much to agree with, much to disagree wirh. But all of it beautifully angry and eloquent
This is the key phrase from Harris, just before he weighs in with his own hot take: everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday.
Did you read the article? He put it down to a huge variety of things. He discussed trans, but only really as it was symptomatic of a wider issue, and he didn't even claim that that wider issue was the whole point.
I pretty much agreed with every paragraph - with the exception of the sentence "Of course, I blame Trump and social media for how divisive our politics have become" - which made me think, no, you've just spent many good and interesting paragraphs demonstrating the extent to which the far left and the left bear responsibility for this. Trump is the reaction to 15 years of increasing insanity on the left.
But aside from that quibble - an excellent essay, and worth ten minutes of anyone's time.
Yes I read the article, which is how I was able to quote from it.
Well yes - but I wouldn't say his essay was what I'd describe as a 'hot take'. Which is why I thought you'd got as far as that line, and thought 'this guy's going to say it's all about trans, but has just made a salient point which kind of overrules all that.' But fair enough if you did read the whole thing.
Betfair is down so any PBers who backed, say, the Dem to beat Kari Lake will not be able to see if they've been paid yet.
We're currently improving our site by carrying out planned maintenance work. We're working to get the site back for 11:00 BST .
Quarter past and Betfair is still down. One can't help suspecting this planned maintenance was planned about ten minutes after something crashed. Their TwiX is now guessing half past eleven but they've not updated the site message.
Pretty much yeah. Something is seriously wrong imo.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
What a triviality, though. If someone here, or anywhere else, calls me Miss instead of Mr I don't give a monkey's because I'm a grown-up.
And if it was you who made the mistake?
So what. I'd assume that they person I'm corresponding with is similarly level-headed.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
The dam has to be broken though. Was Cass the key moment? Not sure.
Since we import a lot of our sociocultural trends from the USA its ultimate fate is largely invested in what happens over there.
I haven't said Good Morning, and thanked @Cyclefree for the header. It's good to see you back - what's the book?
I'm not personally that keen on the header - imo too much heat and not enough light. I'll repeat the comment I made on the last thread.
--------------------------
I'm skim reading sections of the Makin Report, but it's 250 pages and a full "read and absorb" would take a full one or two days.
I haven't found 'Welby lied' yet. And I won't believe in detail what I read in any of the media without reading the original in full - there are too many different agendas. I have found 'Welby failed to sufficiently take notice of, follow through and report things that should have been red flags when they came through his attention', relating to 2013. And also 'Welby failed to follow up the wider implications of contact with particular victims'.
The themes I'm picking up around what went wrong are that 'good systems' are not enough, when there are public reputations, egos, a wish to avoid controversy in your cherished tradition, and pressure to conform involved. Iwerne had some good practices in place, but there were blind spots which the abuser could exploit - and cross-cutting checks and balances were not in place (and would then require to be operated) to catch these.
Some were warned personally by others who were aware that Smyth was a 'bad un', or told 'steer clear of John Smyth' (including Welby when he was in his early 20s in the early 1980s, a junior leader at Iwerne, and potentially at risk of being groomed himself).
But dots weren't joined up, warnings were not clear and done via nods and winks, and not followed through.
The complexity of the Church of England (it is in practice a stack of doctrinal-tradition-based networks with limited intercommunication, and some mutual suspicion, and other denominations which form their own further networks in the stack) make cross-cutting reporting / co-ordination more difficult.
It's an important note that this abuse occurred at "camps" - remote annual events organised by an external trust, rather than "at base", which creates different opportunities for an abuser. They were linked to a separate organisation that organised those events where the abuser situated himself, and later the abuser switched to a different separate organisation.
The abuse was similar in modus operandi to that by Cyril Smith in the childrens homes he had influence over, also in the early 1980s - figures of authority exploiting their positions. That was also described as 'caning boys' iirc, and was 'sloped shoulders on' too.
One important one is to put responsibility where it belongs, and make systems properly resilient. Another is not to pretend this is just the Church, which will be to make the same mistakes that were made here.
I'm moving towards thinking that ++Welby needs to step down for acts of omission in 2013.
Mostly OT, but it's telling watching comparison videos between either Veilguard and Dragon Age Origins, or Veilguard and Baldur's Gate 3. Rather stark contrast of writing talent on display. Seems Bioware's goose may be pretty much cooked (they're working on Mass Effect 5 but after Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilguard maybe that won't be enough).
I haven't said Good Morning, and thanked @Cyclefree for the header. It's good to see you back - what's the book?
I'm not personally that keen on the header - imo too much heat and not enough light. I'll repeat the comment I made on the last thread.
--------------------------
I'm skim reading sections of the Makin Report, but it's 250 pages and a full "read and absorb" would take a full one or two days.
I haven't found 'Welby lied' yet. And I won't believe in detail what I read in any of the media without reading the original in full - there are too many different agendas. I have found 'Welby failed to sufficiently take notice of, follow through and report things that should have been red flags when they came through his attention', relating to 2013. And also 'Welby failed to follow up the wider implications of contact with particular victims'.
The themes I'm picking up around what went wrong are that 'good systems' are not enough, when there are public reputations, egos, a wish to avoid controversy in your cherished tradition, and pressure to conform involved. Iwerne had some good practices in place, but there were blind spots which the abuser could exploit - and cross-cutting checks and balances were not in place (and would then require to be operated) to catch these.
Some were warned personally by others who were aware that Smyth was a 'bad un', or told 'steer clear of John Smyth' (including Welby when he was in his early 20s in the early 1980s, a junior leader at Iwerne, and potentially at risk of being groomed himself).
But dots weren't joined up, warnings were not clear and done via nods and winks, and not followed through.
The complexity of the Church of England (it is in practice a stack of doctrinal-tradition-based networks with limited intercommunication, and some mutual suspicion, and other denominations which form their own further networks in the stack) make cross-cutting reporting / co-ordination more difficult.
It's an important note that this abuse occurred at "camps" - remote annual events organised by an external trust, rather than "at base", which creates different opportunities for an abuser. They were linked to a separate organisation that organised those events where the abuser situated himself, and later the abuser switched to a different separate organisation.
The abuse was similar in modus operandi to that by Cyril Smith in the childrens homes he had influence over, also in the early 1980s - figures of authority exploiting their positions. That was also described as 'caning boys' iirc, and was 'sloped shoulders on' too.
One important one is to put responsibility where it belongs, and make systems properly resilient. Another is not to pretend this is just the Church, which will be to make the same mistakes that were made here.
I'm moving towards thinking that ++Welby needs to step down for acts of omission in 2013.
I've now seen the letter that was sent to +Newcastle that caused her to make her public comment.
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
The people who claimed that were, of course, unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war. They just wanted to win it unopposed.
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Yes he’s a Republican activist, and you may not like him, but is he wrong?
It's interesting, and I don't want to get all "told you so", but as recently as 18 months there was vociferous opposition on here to anyone who challenged identity politics with arguments to the effect that those who did were unhinged extremists prosecuting a culture war.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
Bud Light was the turning point, when corporations realised that their customers can and do vote with their feet if you try and force the wokery on them. They’re only back up to third in the beer market, having been first by quite some distance 18 months ago.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
What a triviality, though. If someone here, or anywhere else, calls me Miss instead of Mr I don't give a monkey's because I'm a grown-up.
Equally, if someone chooses to inform you of their pronouns is this something to get upset about?
If their name is "Michael" who wants to be referred to as "he" or "Amanda" as "she", then it does seem rather superfluous.
With identity politics over, what consensus can we come to on the trans issue. Would be interested to hear @Casino_Royale’s thoughts.
Suggestions: There are exactly two sexes. The term 'gender' - except as a euphemism for biological sex - is at best unhelpful. There are vastly more acceptable ways to behave that 'stereotypically male' or 'stereotypically female'. We can judge things as 'a bit peculiar' without needing them to be actually unacceptable or illegal. As far as possible - and there will of course be extreme cases where this will be necessary - the state should be neither trying to promote nor prohibit ways to behave. We should avoid trying to medicalise things that are not medical issues, especially in children.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
EDIT: Also noted by Decrepiter, I see.
Yes it is. I'm hoping all puzzled Dems read this and reflect well.
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do. Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity… Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks. I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. …Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
The pronoun proliferation in email signatures and Twitter names, amongst others, is definitely part of this. No wonder that tagline was so powerful.
Leaving aside trans, anyone who has worked for a global megacorp will welcome pronouns in signatures as a means of avoiding mistakes when addressing colleagues from different countries.
I don't habitually use a person's pronouns when addressing them. I use their name.
@Leon I have a mate at work who fancies himself as a bit of a traveller. He’s off to Japan in a couple of weeks. Do you have any recommendations? Ideally something that might stretch him a little.
CNN reporting that the puppy killer has been given head of homeland security !
Should fit in perfectly with the Trump cabinet , cruel and a total nutjob .
I see that Kari Lake is one of those politicians who has been affiliated to all 4 tendencies in the US - Democrat, independent, sane Republican, and MAGA.
The left is full of chatter about how they need their own, liberal version of Joe Rogan and the like.
But that's the thing: The left used to have a liberal version of Joe Rogan. His name was Joe Rogan. He voted for Obama twice and endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016. But because he's openminded, will talk to anyone, and doesn't mindlessly accept the latest propaganda, the left kicked him out. They censored his interview with Robert Malone and pressured Spotify to drop him.
The left can't have their own version of Joe Rogan, because everything that makes Rogan special makes it impossible for him to be on the left.
Says Charlie Kirk, a far-right politicial activist, who believes in racial differences in intelligence, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said hydroxychloroquine is 100% effective against COVID-19 but that masks are not, opposes use of oral contraceptives, has pushed various anti-vax positions, etc. So, you know, maybe not the most reliable or unbiased commentator here.
Really, Sandpit, do you think Charlie Kirk is someone we should be listening to on any topic?
Problem is, this reply is exactly what Kirk is criticising. A message can be useful to hear even if the messenger is a loon.
I would argue there is a separate problem - Rogan has a huge amount of power to amplify certain voices. In specific cases (Trump's interview, for a recent example) his popularity skews things in certain directions. I'm not sure this is intentional by Rogan, not do I think this is his fault, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.
I would like to live in a world where Rogan can interview anyone and both Rogan and his listeners can hear messages critically, forming their own opinions rather than taking on the views of those with loud voices in a sheep-like manner.
I'm not sure that's how the world works, though. Attempting to cancel Rogan et al may make the situation even worse.
As a fallback I'd like to keep living in the world where media organisations were held to standards of impartiality in broadcasting but this world has been dismantled rather well, not least by the Tories with respect to the BBC. In hindsight I think it might sit alongside calling the Brexit referendum without a plan as their greatest misstep.
There are a lot of messages from a lot of messengers in the world. I think it's a useful heuristic to focus on people who aren't loons rather than people who are loons. I have attended to Kirk's message here and it's bollocks. It's not a useful point. It's part of a self-reinforcing right-wing grifter philosophy, not some grand insight into a true phenomenon.
Kirk praises being open-minded, but then characterises anything he doesn't like as "propaganda". This is typical hypocrisy from the US right. They don't believe in free speech and being open-minded. Free speech is very selective for the likes of Kirk: everyone should be forced to listen to anti-vaxxers, but someone criticising anti-vaxxers should be cancelled.
The problem with being open-minded is if your brain falls out, as the late, great Daevid Allen said. (OK, he wasn't the first to say it.)
I agree with a lot of what you have just written. It helps that it is a criticism of the message not the messenger.
But if people want to, surely free speech should allow them to? It’s making people feel awkward for not that’s the issue I think?
I have absolutely no issue with people choosing to put pronouns on their footers. However, most HR departments (certainly in the public sector and public sector-adjacent companies) are nowadays quite keen to insist on it.
But if people want to, surely free speech should allow them to? It’s making people feel awkward for not that’s the issue I think?
I have absolutely no issue with people choosing to put pronouns on their footers. However, most HR departments (certainly in the public sector and public sector-adjacent companies) are nowadays quite keen to insist on it.
There's a social pressure to do it as well. If you don't, you stand out and people might think you're a secret bigot.
With identity politics over, what consensus can we come to on the trans issue. Would be interested to hear @Casino_Royale’s thoughts.
That people should always be polite and refer to individuals in whatever manner they request.
That it’s none of people’s business what identity someone has
That medical advice and support should be caring and disinterested rather than driving towards a predetermined outcome (tel he widow of a cousin is one of Europe’s top GU surgeons and was horrified and ashamed that she didn’t clock what was going on at Tavistock) even though she gently steered many of their candidates away from surgery
That where rights conflict it should never be a case of one side trumps all. That the rights of women matter. And if trans people require similar protection that should be provided, but not at the cost of women’s rights. Women’s refuges are the most troublesome: trans women may require protection and it should be provided, but if their presence in a facility makes it untenable for a woman to get protection then that requires separate provision. Based on numbers that probably means separate protection for trans women. It’s not discrimination - it’s simply a necessary adjustment to provide services for all
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
We're tied to gas prices until we either change the way the market works or can have substantial periods with no gas generation needed. I'll give the government some time on that. Reducing renewables would not be making gas any cheaper.
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
Would've been £600 without him
But seriously, it's why REMA is the most important thing the government needs to get right. We can't have our energy bills set by gas wholesale forever.
I'm reminded of Sunak's comment in one of the debates about brining NHS waiting lists down (even though higher than when he made the promise, they were down from the peak which happened after the promise)
Maybe our politicians have been to the DFS school of retail pricing.
My regular comment - don't decommission, just fill them with small reactors. All the safety protocols, grid connections, and the workers are already in place.
DO IT.
I think you'll find the reactor decommissioning - the expensive bit - still needs doing. It may also be that the main structures are also at end of design life. But yes, re-using sites and grid connections makes sense. But then, we've done that - or at least built adjacent - with nuclear power stations for decades.
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
We're tied to gas prices until we either change the way the market works or can have substantial periods with no gas generation needed. I'll give the government some time on that. Reducing renewables would not be making gas any cheaper.
He specifically told us he'd reduce the bills by £300. Regardless of the arguments over being tied to gas or anything else, when will my household bill be reduce by £300 as he promised. If he can't stick to promises, then he is a liar.
The first SRN mast has been built by O2. This is real rural levelling up, providing coverage where it never was before.
And to their credit, started by the Tories.
We went by train from Llandudno to Manchester yesterday and it was noticeable just how many new homes are in construction and of course all started long before labour came into office
Isn't housing devolved, and has not Labour always been in office in Wales ?
(Do they all have sprinklers?)
On the Manchester side, I think that is Mr Burnham.
Though Cheshire is likely to be different.
It was from the Welsh border to Manchester
For the benefit of MattW, not much of this is actually in Cheshire. You see some development in West Cheshire (I think there's some around Helsby?), but there's loads of new development in Warrington (Warrington BC), Newton-le-Willows (St. Helens BC) and Leigh (Wigan MBC, which is GM) - and of course an absolute shedload in Central Salford and Manchester.
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
We're tied to gas prices until we either change the way the market works or can have substantial periods with no gas generation needed. I'll give the government some time on that. Reducing renewables would not be making gas any cheaper.
He specifically told us he'd reduce the bills by £300. Regardless of the arguments over being tied to gas or anything else, when will my household bill be reduce by £300 as he promised. If he can't stick to promises, then he is a liar.
Also it was apparently that old favourite of "up to" £300, which makes it more of a promise that average bills will not be more than £300 less than 2023 come 2030!
I must question your data - not sure of the units, but I'm pretty convinced Miliband derangement syndrome peaked near 2015, then dropped and is now having a major, even larger peak. This apparent decline in MDS does not match my lived experience!
I don't think we're yet at the 2015 peaks of MDS. It's bubbling up on forums like this but hasn't really gone mainstream in the way it did in the run up to the 2015 election.
It's a sign that Ed is actually doing things. A number of right wing posters here have said of the new government things along the lines of "If they actually had a coherent vision that they were executing, even if it was a hard left agenda that I completely disagreed with intellectually, then at least I could respect their position". Well Ed is one, of very few on the front bench, who is doing exactly that. He has a vision and a programme for government - which a number of people vehemently object to or question the details on (e.g. why CCS) - and isn't hanging about.
But retail politics wise they really need to fix one thing - we have to delink the cost of electricity from marginal wholesale gas prices otherwise it'll become easier and easier for the trope that net zero is making energy unaffordable to take hold. Gas prices are up again as we head into winter. Other countries don't have that problem: our pricing system seems to be uniquely badly designed.
Yes. He's one of the few who actually seems to have come into government with a clear plan on what to achieve (we may see more from others, but Miliband is the obvious person who has hit the ground running). Now, some will argue that he's running in the wrong direction, or even round and round in circles, but he does at least have a plan and seems able to articulate it.
Unless I am mistaken, Miliband's plan was that he was going to reduce our household bills by £300. Do you know when this reduction is happening, as mine have just gone UP by £300?
We're tied to gas prices until we either change the way the market works or can have substantial periods with no gas generation needed. I'll give the government some time on that. Reducing renewables would not be making gas any cheaper.
He specifically told us he'd reduce the bills by £300. Regardless of the arguments over being tied to gas or anything else, when will my household bill be reduce by £300 as he promised. If he can't stick to promises, then he is a liar.
Also it was apparently that old favourite of "up to" £300, which makes it more of a promise that average bills will not be more than £300 less than 2023 come 2030!
Ah, yes, Geicoism. Geico (a major US insurance company) has (or possibly had) an advertising slogan that they "could save you 15% or more". Implied, of course, in "could" is "or could not" - making the slogan completely meaningless!
But if people want to, surely free speech should allow them to? It’s making people feel awkward for not that’s the issue I think?
I have absolutely no issue with people choosing to put pronouns on their footers. However, most HR departments (certainly in the public sector and public sector-adjacent companies) are nowadays quite keen to insist on it.
There's a social pressure to do it as well. If you don't, you stand out and people might think you're a secret bigot.
If you don't, surely people might think you're a public bigot? The secret bigots surely display their pronouns and inwardly fume
(I don't, FWIW, so I guess people think I'm a public bigot)
But if people want to, surely free speech should allow them to? It’s making people feel awkward for not that’s the issue I think?
I have absolutely no issue with people choosing to put pronouns on their footers. However, most HR departments (certainly in the public sector and public sector-adjacent companies) are nowadays quite keen to insist on it.
There's a social pressure to do it as well. If you don't, you stand out and people might think you're a secret bigot.
If you don't, surely people might think you're a public bigot? The secret bigots surely display their pronouns and inwardly fume
(I don't, FWIW, so I guess people think I'm a public bigot)
A public bigot would list their pronouns as "(ob/vious)" or something similar, perhaps.
Trans women are people and should have all the political freedom of people. But to say that they are women—and that making any distinction between them and biological women, for any purpose, is a thought crime and an act of bigotry—that is the precept of a new religion. And it is a religion that most Americans want nothing to do with.
[...]
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote. In fact, it is the issue that fully radicalized Elon, and he's spoken about this at length. Do you think Elon continuously messaging to 200 million people on X, and going to Trump's rallies, and donating over 100 million dollars to the campaign, and supporting him on podcasts, and doing everything else in his power to get Trump elected, might have accounted for a few votes? Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.
That's a very good article by Harris.
"One lesson that I would be quick to draw from this election is that Americans aren't really fond of seeing biological men punch women in the face at the Olympics. And if that sounds like transphobia to you—you're the problem."
This is a good sentence imo:
"Obviously, Trump's win and Harris' loss were determined by many factors, and I think everyone is in danger of believing that their pet issue explains everything that happened on Tuesday."
His analysis of how musk swang behind Trump, and why, and why that was so important - is spot on
He then goes into a rant of pure Musk Derangement Syndrome, but at least he writes it well
That started long before, when Biden didn't ask him to the EV summit (genuinely foolish in policy terms), and allowed heavy handed regulation of cryptocurrency (arguably, at least, the right decision).
Had the administration involved Musk in their EV manufacturing chain planning, it might well have turned out differently.
The culture war stuff is minor in comparison, IMO.
My regular comment - don't decommission, just fill them with small reactors. All the safety protocols, grid connections, and the workers are already in place.
DO IT.
That doesn't really work, though, in generation capacity terms. We need to keep at least one of the old reactors going (and it's entirely feasible).
Small nukes, yes. The regulation could be greatly streamlined, almost overnight (would take a ministerial decision) - and that would transform the economics.
@Leon I have a mate at work who fancies himself as a bit of a traveller. He’s off to Japan in a couple of weeks. Do you have any recommendations? Ideally something that might stretch him a little.
Ise shrine Kinosaki-onsen Hida furukawa Kyotango coast Osaka - really surprising city but overlooked
Basically just get off the Tokyo-Kyoto-Hiroshima trail (tho you must see them). Japan is brilliant everywhere - if you like cultural surprises and great food
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
If we'd listened to the anti-renewables loons we wouldn't have.
Almost everything achieved has been from switching from coal to gas. And we have loads more of it under the sea and parts of Lancashire.
That was perhaps true 20 years ago after the dash for gas, though you are not clear whether you are talking about energy use or emissions, and which emissions, or global warming.
From about 2000, the switch on electricity generation was from Coal to Renewables, not Coal to Gas. You can also see the reduction in quantum from peak, despite increase in domestic electric heating and electric transport - electricity imports do not account for that. My photo quota: Source: p28 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/664c827ff34f9b5a56adcb5d/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2023.pdf
(We need a version of that graph for total energy production, which I do not have to hand. I think the curve is/will be similar, but offset to the right as we shift to more electricity usage over time.)
Since then very major contributions have been made by both reduction of energy use, and decarbonisation through a pivot to renewables.
One big indicator, which the Usonians will really struggle with as they are addicted to being profligate, is reduced energy/emissions intensity per unit of GDP, which we have slashed since 2000.
The reason for the energy efficiency has been high prices.
I haven’t seen any recognition of the issue coming down the road - with solar plus storage continuing to crater in price terms, the religion of We Must Have High Prices To Curtail Usage becomes obsolete.
I go about half way with your first para - it's also been things like the many Govt programmes such as ECO1 -> ECO4, and the Blair Government programme which ran from ~2001 and was continued to ~2019 in the social housing sector.
Plus there have been industrial decarbonisation / efficiency programmes running since the 1990s to now, especially in electricity generation.
Except for the first para they are not related to high supply prices as a cause.|
Though TBF I quite like price regulation upwards as a way of influencing behaviour, especially on motor vehicles. An energy Pigou tax !
The "we will have free energy so we can build millions of wind and solar farms" comes up against limited land supply, which seems to me to be a strong justification for driving efficiency over "all you want for free".
To a certain damaged type of person, wanting people (largely the poor) to make do with less has become a coveted end in itself. It's a fairly grim perversion.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
If we'd listened to the anti-renewables loons we wouldn't have.
Almost everything achieved has been from switching from coal to gas. And we have loads more of it under the sea and parts of Lancashire.
That was perhaps true 20 years ago after the dash for gas, though you are not clear whether you are talking about energy use or emissions, and which emissions, or global warming.
From about 2000, the switch on electricity generation was from Coal to Renewables, not Coal to Gas. You can also see the reduction in quantum from peak, despite increase in domestic electric heating and electric transport - electricity imports do not account for that. My photo quota: Source: p28 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/664c827ff34f9b5a56adcb5d/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2023.pdf
(We need a version of that graph for total energy production, which I do not have to hand. I think the curve is/will be similar, but offset to the right as we shift to more electricity usage over time.)
Since then very major contributions have been made by both reduction of energy use, and decarbonisation through a pivot to renewables.
One big indicator, which the Usonians will really struggle with as they are addicted to being profligate, is reduced energy/emissions intensity per unit of GDP, which we have slashed since 2000.
The reason for the energy efficiency has been high prices.
I haven’t seen any recognition of the issue coming down the road - with solar plus storage continuing to crater in price terms, the religion of We Must Have High Prices To Curtail Usage becomes obsolete.
I go about half way with your first para - it's also been things like the many Govt programmes such as ECO1 -> ECO4, and the Blair Government programme which ran from ~2001 and was continued to ~2019 in the social housing sector.
Plus there have been industrial decarbonisation / efficiency programmes running since the 1990s to now, especially in electricity generation.
Except for the first para they are not related to high supply prices as a cause.|
Though TBF I quite like price regulation upwards as a way of influencing behaviour, especially on motor vehicles. An energy Pigou tax !
The "we will have free energy so we can build millions of wind and solar farms" comes up against limited land supply, which seems to me to be a strong justification for driving efficiency over "all you want for free".
To a certain damaged type of person, wanting people (largely the poor) to make do with less has become a coveted end in itself. It's a fairly grim perversion.
I can't understand that comment.
How is investment to reduce energy bills of 'poorer people', by perhaps half, supposed to be taking things away from them?
That far outweighs market nudges for that group.
The weight of the programmes some of which I listed has been partially open to all on simpler elements, and means tested on the more complex elements. The balance has been to tip the benefits of lower bills to benefit less weathly people, whcih is the correct balance.
See, for example, the criteria and services for the ECO1 to ECO4 programmes over the last decade.
Yet you listen to the climate loons and you'd think we have done nothing
If we'd listened to the anti-renewables loons we wouldn't have.
Almost everything achieved has been from switching from coal to gas. And we have loads more of it under the sea and parts of Lancashire.
That was perhaps true 20 years ago after the dash for gas, though you are not clear whether you are talking about energy use or emissions, and which emissions, or global warming.
From about 2000, the switch on electricity generation was from Coal to Renewables, not Coal to Gas. You can also see the reduction in quantum from peak, despite increase in domestic electric heating and electric transport - electricity imports do not account for that. My photo quota: Source: p28 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/664c827ff34f9b5a56adcb5d/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2023.pdf
(We need a version of that graph for total energy production, which I do not have to hand. I think the curve is/will be similar, but offset to the right as we shift to more electricity usage over time.)
Since then very major contributions have been made by both reduction of energy use, and decarbonisation through a pivot to renewables.
One big indicator, which the Usonians will really struggle with as they are addicted to being profligate, is reduced energy/emissions intensity per unit of GDP, which we have slashed since 2000.
The reason for the energy efficiency has been high prices.
I haven’t seen any recognition of the issue coming down the road - with solar plus storage continuing to crater in price terms, the religion of We Must Have High Prices To Curtail Usage becomes obsolete.
I go about half way with your first para - it's also been things like the many Govt programmes such as ECO1 -> ECO4, and the Blair Government programme which ran from ~2001 and was continued to ~2019 in the social housing sector.
Plus there have been industrial decarbonisation / efficiency programmes running since the 1990s to now, especially in electricity generation.
Except for the first para they are not related to high supply prices as a cause.|
Though TBF I quite like price regulation upwards as a way of influencing behaviour, especially on motor vehicles. An energy Pigou tax !
The "we will have free energy so we can build millions of wind and solar farms" comes up against limited land supply, which seems to me to be a strong justification for driving efficiency over "all you want for free".
To a certain damaged type of person, wanting people (largely the poor) to make do with less has become a coveted end in itself. It's a fairly grim perversion.
I can't understand that comment.
How is investment to reduce energy bills of 'poorer people', by perhaps half, supposed to be taking things away from them?
That far outweighs market nudges for that group.
The weight of the programmes some of which I listed has been partially open to all on simpler elements, and means tested on the more complex elements. The balance has been to tip the benefits of lower bills to benefit less weathly people, whcih is the correct balance.
See, for example, the criteria and services for the ECO1 to ECO4 programmes over the last decade.
It's a form of PB's favourite topic - productivity growth. Keeping your home warm or your business operating while using and spending less on energy is a good thing.
Making do with less is a virtue in the private sector. It's how you can sometimes turn a profit.
Comments
I was as stridently critical of Starmer for not saying what he was going to do before the election as anyone - but I didn't start in his first couple of weeks!
It's bunch a of things which, together, were so weighty to outweigh electing someone as ghastly as Trump.
This is undeniably a key part of it though:
"I've spoken to many Democrats in recent years, and over the course of this election, and a shocking percentage of them imagine that all the controversy about trans rights and gender identity in kids is just a product of right-wing bigotry—and that it’s a non-issue, politically. Whereas it is obvious that, for millions of Americans, it might as well have been the only issue in this election. Not because they are transphobic assholes, but because they simply do not accept the new metaphysics, and even new biology, mandated by trans activists and the institutions that they have successfully bullied and captured. And it's important to say that not all trans people agree with what these activists say and do.
Having the thought police suddenly proscribe the use of the term “woman,” and demanding that we speak instead of “birthing person,” or “menstruators,” or “people with ovaries,” or some other Orwellian construction designed to test everyone's patience and sanity…
Congratulations, Democrats. You have found the most annoying thing in the fucking galaxy and hung it around your necks.
I know people who haven't been touched by this issue personally, for whom it was the only issue that decided their vote.
…Honestly, I think a doctoral dissertation, and perhaps several, could be written on how trans activism completely destroyed Democratic politics—without most Democrats knowing.”
DO IT.
Up from 4.0% to 4.3% (individual month figure is 4.5% from 4.0%). Wages growth easing.
This is pre-budget. Are we looking at 5.0% unemployment in the first few months of the year, with inflation catching up with wages?
A budget for growth...
He’s right. Identity politics is over, hopefully.
It seems to have already been buried here with Cass?
But we simply don't see the projects that deliver on time and on budget. Locals get to see them, but probably don't think much about it. Projects are only really newsworthy when they're going wrong side up.
Kemi needs this time to establish her presence as the person who can gain the country' trust and by holding Starmer and labour to account
See also:
https://x.com/bridgetphetasy/status/1852881275146703149
https://x.com/timcast/status/1854699404206182730
There are a lot of centrist commentators who voted for Trump last week, as some of us have been highlighting here for months now.
I think the only way to fight Trump was to tell equally egregious lies. "These top 1,000 employers will go bust within 6 months of another Trump presidency..." At least some of these might well have come true. "Oh look, two days in and TGI Fridays has already filed for Chapter Eleven bankruptcy..."
Mr Horse thinks madcap left identity politics is over - it isn't but we are past its peak. As it dwindles further we will look back on the last ten or so years with disbelief and the stench of it will envelope the Dems for some time yet.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/one-two-three-the-japanese-stretch-routine-performed-by-millions
I pretty much agreed with every paragraph - with the exception of the sentence "Of course, I blame Trump and social media for how divisive our politics have become" - which made me think, no, you've just spent many good and interesting paragraphs demonstrating the extent to which the far left and the left bear responsibility for this. Trump is the reaction to 15 years of increasing insanity on the left.
But aside from that quibble - an excellent essay, and worth ten minutes of anyone's time.
Turns out the mass of the people didn't like it either and if you put up a defence, it stops.
But seriously, it's why REMA is the most important thing the government needs to get right. We can't have our energy bills set by gas wholesale forever.
(Do they all have sprinklers?)
On the Manchester side, I think that is Mr Burnham.
Though Cheshire is likely to be different.
Where I agree with you, though, is that the nuance has successfully been crowded out of public political discourse, particularly in USA. I suspect we disagree over who is primarily at fault for this.
Less so here cf Cass.
Kirk praises being open-minded, but then characterises anything he doesn't like as "propaganda". This is typical hypocrisy from the US right. They don't believe in free speech and being open-minded. Free speech is very selective for the likes of Kirk: everyone should be forced to listen to anti-vaxxers, but someone criticising anti-vaxxers should be cancelled.
The problem with being open-minded is if your brain falls out, as the late, great Daevid Allen said. (OK, he wasn't the first to say it.)
Had the Dems held all their seats, they'd have won the House. Had the Republicans held theirs, they'd have a reasonably comfortable majority.
Yes, he is wrong. He pretends to favour openmindedness, but describes any view he doesn't like as propaganda.
But if people want to, surely free speech should allow them to? It’s making people feel awkward for not that’s the issue I think?
In a MUD. The Templars were the good guys. About half the time my name (Morgan) led n00blets to thank 'Lady Morgan' for her help. Somehow, I survived.
NEW THREAD
I'm not personally that keen on the header - imo too much heat and not enough light. I'll repeat the comment I made on the last thread.
--------------------------
I'm skim reading sections of the Makin Report, but it's 250 pages and a full "read and absorb" would take a full one or two days.
I haven't found 'Welby lied' yet. And I won't believe in detail what I read in any of the media without reading the original in full - there are too many different agendas. I have found 'Welby failed to sufficiently take notice of, follow through and report things that should have been red flags when they came through his attention', relating to 2013. And also 'Welby failed to follow up the wider implications of contact with particular victims'.
The themes I'm picking up around what went wrong are that 'good systems' are not enough, when there are public reputations, egos, a wish to avoid controversy in your cherished tradition, and pressure to conform involved. Iwerne had some good practices in place, but there were blind spots which the abuser could exploit - and cross-cutting checks and balances were not in place (and would then require to be operated) to catch these.
Some were warned personally by others who were aware that Smyth was a 'bad un', or told 'steer clear of John Smyth' (including Welby when he was in his early 20s in the early 1980s, a junior leader at Iwerne, and potentially at risk of being groomed himself).
But dots weren't joined up, warnings were not clear and done via nods and winks, and not followed through.
The complexity of the Church of England (it is in practice a stack of doctrinal-tradition-based networks with limited intercommunication, and some mutual suspicion, and other denominations which form their own further networks in the stack) make cross-cutting reporting / co-ordination more difficult.
It's an important note that this abuse occurred at "camps" - remote annual events organised by an external trust, rather than "at base", which creates different opportunities for an abuser. They were linked to a separate organisation that organised those events where the abuser situated himself, and later the abuser switched to a different separate organisation.
The abuse was similar in modus operandi to that by Cyril Smith in the childrens homes he had influence over, also in the early 1980s - figures of authority exploiting their positions. That was also described as 'caning boys' iirc, and was 'sloped shoulders on' too.
One important one is to put responsibility where it belongs, and make systems properly resilient. Another is not to pretend this is just the Church, which will be to make the same mistakes that were made here.
I'm moving towards thinking that ++Welby needs to step down for acts of omission in 2013.
Also thanks to @Alanbrooke for his piece yesterday - it's good to see that we get a range of viewpoints above the line.
I can see why ++Welby needs to go...
There are exactly two sexes.
The term 'gender' - except as a euphemism for biological sex - is at best unhelpful.
There are vastly more acceptable ways to behave that 'stereotypically male' or 'stereotypically female'.
We can judge things as 'a bit peculiar' without needing them to be actually unacceptable or illegal.
As far as possible - and there will of course be extreme cases where this will be necessary - the state should be neither trying to promote nor prohibit ways to behave.
We should avoid trying to medicalise things that are not medical issues, especially in children.
However, most HR departments (certainly in the public sector and public sector-adjacent companies) are nowadays quite keen to insist on it.
That it’s none of people’s business what identity someone has
That medical advice and support should be caring and disinterested rather than driving towards a predetermined outcome (tel he widow of a cousin is one of Europe’s top GU surgeons and was horrified and ashamed that she didn’t clock what was going on at
Tavistock) even though she gently steered many of their candidates away from surgery
That where rights conflict it should never be a case of one side trumps all. That the rights of women matter. And if trans people require similar protection that should be provided, but not at the cost of women’s rights. Women’s refuges are the most troublesome: trans women may require protection and it should be provided, but if their presence in a facility makes it untenable for a woman to get protection then that requires separate provision. Based on numbers that probably means separate protection for trans women. It’s not discrimination - it’s simply a necessary adjustment to provide services for all
Maybe our politicians have been to the DFS school of retail pricing.
https://fullfact.org/live/2024/jul/labour-300-energy-bills/
Also it was apparently that old favourite of "up to" £300, which makes it more of a promise that average bills will not be more than £300 less than 2023 come 2030!
(I don't, FWIW, so I guess people think I'm a public bigot)
Had the administration involved Musk in their EV manufacturing chain planning, it might well have turned out differently.
The culture war stuff is minor in comparison, IMO.
We need to keep at least one of the old reactors going (and it's entirely feasible).
Small nukes, yes. The regulation could be greatly streamlined, almost overnight (would take a ministerial decision) - and that would transform the economics.
Kinosaki-onsen
Hida furukawa
Kyotango coast
Osaka - really surprising city but overlooked
Basically just get off the Tokyo-Kyoto-Hiroshima trail (tho you must see them). Japan is brilliant everywhere - if you like cultural surprises and great
food
How is investment to reduce energy bills of 'poorer people', by perhaps half, supposed to be taking things away from them?
That far outweighs market nudges for that group.
The weight of the programmes some of which I listed has been partially open to all on simpler elements, and means tested on the more complex elements. The balance has been to tip the benefits of lower bills to benefit less weathly people, whcih is the correct balance.
See, for example, the criteria and services for the ECO1 to ECO4 programmes over the last decade.
Making do with less is a virtue in the private sector. It's how you can sometimes turn a profit.