Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
If you get an email like that you're not likely to rush out and buy more. You'll be thinking, do I need to see someone about my rosemary and garlic cracker dependency?
They are clearly highly addictive. Maybe that's why their name includes the word crack.
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
No person should live in poverty but what is poverty in this day and age ? An arbitrary figure based on median income. Yeah, right 😂
I think you're arguing that children should stay in poverty if removing it requires action or money from government. Which is a valid, if somewhat brutal argument. The "arbitrary" bit is just to avoid having to accept the logical consequences of the argument.
The other day at the NATO Leaders' summit, oine of \trump's mushrooms popped up to rebuke Europe for buying fewer weapons from the USA.
But then Trump & Co are weird.
Truth, meet consequences.
Entirely consistent. The demand is both Europe buys weapons from the US (often that the US maintains control over when they can be used) and that Europe replaces US forces in conventional defence of Europe.
From a fairness point of view the second part is actually completely fine. From a protecting the peaceful legacy we have enjoyed under NATO for decades to come point of view however, it is a clear escalation in risk, that ultimately benefits Putin the most.
For the second point to be valid, then we, not the US should be deciding how or whether to negotiate with the Russian invader. As far as the US wanting to limit European defence capacity is concerned, they can do one.
The section of the new Nat Sec document which deals with Europe sounds as though the first draft was written by Putin, before being rephrased in Trumpspeak.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
Do they have any findings/conclusions? I can't read the article.
The modelling of the various scenarios is interesting, and ranges from Reform majorities to various balanced parliaments, and from Tory wipeout to modest recovery, and even one scenario where Labour recovers to largest party. But the TLDR findings are ‘f*** knows what’s going happen next time’ and ‘our electoral system is a lottery that is no longer fit for purpose’.
My wife won't drive on the motorway. I keep telling her that if she can drive in SE London she can drive on the motorway, to no avail.
I find my wife's unwillingness to use Adaptive Cruise control on a motorway annoying.
It makes driving really simple, sit in the inside lane until bored or you actually notice the car in front has slowed down to 50 then move a lane accelerate a bit and slot in again a few cars further up...
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
There you go. Make sure you use the appropriate toilet.
I always use the Laddies' toilet
What happens to clients who go to ladbrokesexchange first though?
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
"...The starting point for our model is nationwide opinion polling..."
That's your input, but what's your output?
"...We measured the difference between thousands of historical nationwide polls and the subsequent election results to estimate the likely polling error if an election were held today. We found that polling errors often lean towards the last election result (perhaps because undecided voters return to the party they supported last time) and encoded that into our model..."
OK the best predictor of the next election is the last election, but I could have told them that. And they're modelling the polling error (between the poll and the vote?)
"...Next we considered how each region and nation might swing..."
Fair enough, you've added a regional component. I like that. This is presumably a swing in the vote?
"...We fit a regression model to consider the historical relationship between a party’s vote share in a constituency in one election and the next, given the nationwide and regional picture..."
OK, you've built a model that inputs one or more polls, the estimated polling error and regional swing, and converts that to...an election vote in a region?
"...Finally, we translate these regional results to each constituency [using MRP]...."
OK, got that,
So they have three models.
MODEL 0
Inputs: lots of historical and regional polls up to the last election
Method: Simulation
Output: polling error and regional swing for the next election
MODEL 1
Inputs: Today's poll(s)
Method: Linear regression?
Output: Today's election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
MODEL 2
Input: election vote in the regions and nations taking polling error and regional swing into account
Method: MRP
Output: Today's election result for each constituency and hence today's election result
In similar vein, Waitrose has just emailed to let me know that I am the top buyer of their rosemary and garlic crackers on the island. Someone in their data-crunching department has too much time on their hands…
If you get an email like that you're not likely to rush out and buy more. You'll be thinking, do I need to see someone about my rosemary and garlic cracker dependency?
They are clearly highly addictive. Maybe that's why their name includes the word crack.
They certainly are! When, some years back, Waitrose discontinued its rosemary crackers, I was forced to prowl the island in search of a replacement, and found myself leaving the dog in the car while I went into Morrisons to buy six boxes at a time of their rosemary crackers, often attracting very suspicious glances from the staff member watching their self-checkout terminals. Once I was even driven to go into the local co-op for their similar product.
Now, Waitrose is back in the game, and the only embarrassment I have to endure is their delivery person dropping multiple boxes onto my doorstep every Thursday morning, while the dog sniffs about to see if I’ve remembered to order his favourite treats.
The other day at the NATO Leaders' summit, oine of \trump's mushrooms popped up to rebuke Europe for buying fewer weapons from the USA.
But then Trump & Co are weird.
Truth, meet consequences.
Entirely consistent. The demand is both Europe buys weapons from the US (often that the US maintains control over when they can be used) and that Europe replaces US forces in conventional defence of Europe.
From a fairness point of view the second part is actually completely fine. From a protecting the peaceful legacy we have enjoyed under NATO for decades to come point of view however, it is a clear escalation in risk, that ultimately benefits Putin the most.
An ambivalent America also increases the risk of nuclear war. Avoiding it is rooted in the expectation an attack on (say) the Baltics or Taiwan would result in a US military response. If the calculation becomes that a response is doubtful it makes such an attack more likely. Then you've taken that first step on the escalator.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
Get a BMW with Parking Assistant Plus. Our iX has it and it's brilliant. If it is physically possible to get the vehicle into the parking space within the holomonic constraints of the steering geometry, PAP will do it first time, every time.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
Get a BMW with Parking Assistant Plus. Our iX has it and it's brilliant. If it is physically possible to get the vehicle into the parking space within the holomonic constraints of the steering geometry, PAP will do it first time, every time.
You don't use a 90deg power-slide approach to the kerb ?
(Though strictly speaking that would be non-holomonic.)
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
Get a BMW with Parking Assistant Plus. Our iX has it and it's brilliant. If it is physically possible to get the vehicle into the parking space within the holomonic constraints of the steering geometry, PAP will do it first time, every time.
That sounds better than Toyota’s offering, which refuses to park in a space that I can easily manoeuvre into.
People who live in inner London can parallel park. Those who live elsewhere with their big front drives and garages, can’t.
How, in inner London, is parking your car parallel to another ever going to be acceptable behaviour?
Happens all the time at my bit, lazy fcukers double parking cos ‘they’re just popping into a shop for 5 minutes’, even with an actual parking space several cars away.
It looks like Labour have found their soul and have made reducing child poverty a key mission in this parliament.
A government needs a narrative and needs the public to see a purpose . Regardless of whether people agree with lifting the two child benefit cap Labour no child should live in poverty .
No person should live in poverty but what is poverty in this day and age ? An arbitrary figure based on median income. Yeah, right 😂
There are clearly some people who are living in poverty, so lets focus on that rather than getting too excited about metrics.
What is poverty though ?
We are not focussing on that we are getting excited by a metric.
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
Joke mode on.
Only consider anyone a woman if they can multi-task - as no man can.
Only consider anyone a man if they can parallel park - an no woman can.
Joke mode off, and dives behind the sofa.
I'm so bad at parallel parking - I'm clearly a women...
There you go. Make sure you use the appropriate toilet.
The other day at the NATO Leaders' summit, oine of \trump's mushrooms popped up to rebuke Europe for buying fewer weapons from the USA.
But then Trump & Co are weird.
Truth, meet consequences.
Entirely consistent. The demand is both Europe buys weapons from the US (often that the US maintains control over when they can be used) and that Europe replaces US forces in conventional defence of Europe.
From a fairness point of view the second part is actually completely fine. From a protecting the peaceful legacy we have enjoyed under NATO for decades to come point of view however, it is a clear escalation in risk, that ultimately benefits Putin the most.
An ambivalent America also increases the risk of nuclear war. Avoiding it is rooted in the expectation an attack on (say) the Baltics or Taiwan would result in a US military response. If the calculation becomes that a response is doubtful it makes such an attack more likely. Then you've taken that first step on the escalator.
Hence my proposal for restructuring public services in the U.K.
If the traffic wardens and the CCF at the local schools have tactical nuclear weapons, then we can really democratise defence.
My wife won't drive on the motorway. I keep telling her that if she can drive in SE London she can drive on the motorway, to no avail.
That’s a news article on the BBC then !
Motorway driving is a doddle.
Reminds me of the Jasper Carrott joke about calling his wife to warn her about a report of a car driving the wrong way on the motorway, to be told, "It's not just one. There are dozens of them."
My wife won't drive on the motorway. I keep telling her that if she can drive in SE London she can drive on the motorway, to no avail.
That’s a news article on the BBC then !
Motorway driving is a doddle.
Reminds me of the Jasper Carrott joke about calling his wife to warn her about a report of a car driving the wrong way on the motorway, to be told, "It's not just one. There are dozens of them."
Ukraine (and probably the rest of Europe over time) will be even more thoroughly shafted if we get the Putin-Vance alliance.
True.
The sensible response has been from the Poles. Who are re-arming heavily, with an emphasis on building factories on their soil - buying off the peg, but asking for a factory to be built in Poland, in light of the large orders.
That and making sure that the export restrictions on the new weapons are next-to-non-existent. See the stuff they have bought from South Korea.
In a few years the Poles will have a huge military, based on weapons that work. And that they fully control.
Our election model considers what might happen in each of Britain’s 632 constituencies if an election were held today. But rather than giving a single prediction, we fine-tuned our model to show a range of possible outcomes, based on historical trends and the latest opinion polls. As illustrated above, Britain’s electoral system is highly uncertain. We drew on data from the past 80 years of elections to quantify this uncertainty, and estimate how it might unfold in an imaginary election.
Do they have any findings/conclusions? I can't read the article.
The modelling of the various scenarios is interesting, and ranges from Reform majorities to various balanced parliaments, and from Tory wipeout to modest recovery, and even one scenario where Labour recovers to largest party. But the TLDR findings are ‘f*** knows what’s going happen next time’ and ‘our electoral system is a lottery that is no longer fit for purpose’.
It's weird because probably about 500 of the 650 MPs in the HoC would be in favour of changing the voting system to something more proportional. But it doesn't happen for some reason.
For reasons I shouldn't really go into I've just downloaded a journal article from 'Deviant Behaviour'. Never knew said journal existed until this morning!
I got your message on the previous thread and will respond as requested.
I note this comment from you, which is a view share by some other posters -
"I hold the Widdecombe position on trans: namely, those who have gone all the way surgically/hormonally and can reasonably function as the opposite sex should be allowed to be legally considered as the opposite sex."
I realise that people cannot be expected to follow the ins and outs of complicated areas of law. But the ECHR ruled in 2017 in the case of Garçon & Nicot v France (followed in a case against Italy in 2018 and Romania in 2021 saying the same) that countries could NOT insist on surgery (with a high risk of sterility) as a condition for recognising a change in gender in law. The ECHR has ruled that a change gender identity must in certain circumstances be recognised in law, regardless of a persons physical body. This therefore means means that you cannot link gender recognition to surgery/hormone treatment and must give it to, for instance, a man who has made no changes to his body whatsoever or to a woman trying to get pregnant, if they claim to have changed their gender (re this last, see the recent ruling by Mr Justice Hayden in the "W" case - in October 2025).
Ms Widdecombe, as a former MP and Minister in the Home Office, should have done her research before opining on this or putting this forward as some sort of solution or compromise. It isn't. It is unlawful. This debate is persistently hampered by politicians and commentators putting forward "solutions" which are unlawful. It is unfair and unkind to all concerned to offer false solutions and to mislead about what the law says and has said for some time, whatever side of the debate anyone is on.
I understood that, although thank you for the sources: always a help. But you misunderstood my point.
My point is that those who have undergone sufficient physical changes, especially but not only to the genitals, should be legally regarded as the opposite sex, not just the opposite gender (so to speak). Domains like sports, prisons etc could then be finessed by further conditions such as height, weight, history etc. This was the existing system when sex and gender were synonyms, and only became untenable when the meanings diverged and unshaven bald seven-footers started claiming a female gender.
News from my parish...the government's published amendments to the Employment Rights Bill and there's a proper seismic shift buried in there. They're scrapping the cap on unfair dismissal compensation awards. Completely. Just a simple "omit s124" - that's ERA 1996 the section that limits the payout. Gone. Will need primary legislation from a future govt to bring back as will changing the qualifying period that's going from 2 years down to 6 months.
So if this gets through the Lords, we're looking at uncapped awards for unfair dismissal claims. Sky's the limit. For context, the current cap is around £120k (or a year's salary if lower). That's already a chunky sum, but now? Could be multiples of that depending on actual losses. Admittedly the median award's only £15k so not much will actually change at the sharp end but, nevertheless, employers are going to be bricking it.
One angle that occurs, it will actually reduce the amount of legal gymnastics where claimants try to wedge whistleblowing or discrimination angles into unfair dismissal cases just to dodge the compensation cap. If there's no cap to dodge, there's less incentive for creative pleading.
Ukraine (and probably the rest of Europe over time) will be even more thoroughly shafted if we get the Putin-Vance alliance.
Europe won't remain passive indefinitely. We shouldn't forget that the original rationale for NATO from a British perspective was to prevent Germany reemerging as a world power.
Ukraine (and probably the rest of Europe over time) will be even more thoroughly shafted if we get the Putin-Vance alliance.
Europe won't remain passive indefinitely. We shouldn't forget that the original rationale for NATO from a British perspective was to prevent Germany reemerging as a world power.
Its not really relevant anymore, so yes lets forget and focus on China and the US as the superpowers and Russia as the one starting wars and disrupting our societies.
Comments
As far as the US wanting to limit European defence capacity is concerned, they can do one.
The section of the new Nat Sec document which deals with Europe sounds as though the first draft was written by Putin, before being rephrased in Trumpspeak.
It makes driving really simple, sit in the inside lane until bored or you actually notice the car in front has slowed down to 50 then move a lane accelerate a bit and slot in again a few cars further up...
Now, Waitrose is back in the game, and the only embarrassment I have to endure is their delivery person dropping multiple boxes onto my doorstep every Thursday morning, while the dog sniffs about to see if I’ve remembered to order his favourite treats.
https://x.com/harryjsisson/status/1996651623662444828
(Though strictly speaking that would be non-holomonic.)
We are not focussing on that we are getting excited by a metric.
If the traffic wardens and the CCF at the local schools have tactical nuclear weapons, then we can really democratise defence.
Motorway driving is a doddle.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/04/the-daily-t-labour-cancel-elections-stop-farage-reform/
That and making sure that the export restrictions on the new weapons are next-to-non-existent. See the stuff they have bought from South Korea.
In a few years the Poles will have a huge military, based on weapons that work. And that they fully control.
My point is that those who have undergone sufficient physical changes, especially but not only to the genitals, should be legally regarded as the opposite sex, not just the opposite gender (so to speak). Domains like sports, prisons etc could then be finessed by further conditions such as height, weight, history etc. This was the existing system when sex and gender were synonyms, and only became untenable when the meanings diverged and unshaven bald seven-footers started claiming a female gender.
So if this gets through the Lords, we're looking at uncapped awards for unfair dismissal claims. Sky's the limit. For context, the current cap is around £120k (or a year's salary if lower). That's already a chunky sum, but now? Could be multiples of that depending on actual losses. Admittedly the median award's only £15k so not much will actually change at the sharp end but, nevertheless, employers are going to be bricking it.
One angle that occurs, it will actually reduce the amount of legal gymnastics where claimants try to wedge whistleblowing or discrimination angles into unfair dismissal cases just to dodge the compensation cap. If there's no cap to dodge, there's less incentive for creative pleading.