In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
I cannot understand the Lib Dems' position for these elections. Their recent PPB seemed to focus entirely on Brexit. Whilst that is a USP for them, I doubt many people will be changing their vote for the locals on the strength of it - after all, the Lib Dems have been the 'proper' remain party for a couple of years now.
What the Lib Dems need is to shout out their values and what the party can offer the country - and there is a saleable product there. Instead, they're navel-gazing on an area that won't change votes.
Cable is an absolute disaster.
I've delivered 5 different Lib Dem leaflets for the candidates in our two main local target wards during the past few weeks and I'll be delivering another one tomorrow. Not a single one of those leaflets have made any mention of Brexit - and our candidates are very much focused on the local issues for these elections.
I'm glad to hear it. But leaflets does not change the issue with that PPB. The Lib Dems don't need to forget about Brexit, but they cannot afford to be defined by it.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
ROFL
so these smart Londoners cant work out that letting 4 million people in to the country - and especially the major cities- without appropriate provision of housing, schools, hospital transport might have consequences for them ?
the stupification of the countryside beckons
Whether you are right or wrong, I'd warn generally against the view that the voters are simply too stupid to see that their problems aren't 'your' fault and that they will doubtless work it out in time for the next election. That tactic has a poor track record.
likewise I'd warn generally that assuming people who vote Labour in their 20s will do so in their 50s has a poor track record
Indeed. Good thing I've not made that assumption or argument at any point. My argument is that people in their 40s-50s are more likely to vote Labour if they see their children being priced out of the area they brought them up in.
my kids cant afford to live in my village. It doesn't make we want to vote Labour.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
Since when has Teresa May made a robust response to anything?
I must say it’s a delight to watch the Brexiters froth and spin. I’d have more sympathy if there was any kind of plan for Brexit. But there isn’t. Instead it continues to fall to the EU to write the actual negotiating papers, and to Remainers to figure out how the hell to do it.
All Brexiters do is grizzle, impotently. In the absence of logical argument, no wonder some seek psychosexual reasons for the Brexit derangement.
Roll on a referendum on the deal. We can’t go back, but we certainly ain’t going forward.
OT. cyclefree. Thanks for your interesting comment on my cafe owner friend. You're more compassionate than the average PBer. Out of interest one piece of information that I didn't know when I wrote that letter is that he had produced a work permit but it was a fake. One readily available on the internet apparently and whether because it was convincing or he was too inexperienced to know the difference I don't know but £15,000 is a big price to pay for a very honest mistake.
Thank you. That does sound very unfortunate for your friend. It does seem to me that that sort of a fine is very large and not very sensible. Perhaps a smaller fine or a warning might have been better....
I made the same point about the apparent disproportionality of the fine earlier.
Regarding our conversation yesterday, I note that half of Australia has decriminalised prostitution for a while now. There is evidence which tends to support both your and my views on the matter - while there do seem to be improvements in terms of health and reduction in coercion, overall it still looks a pretty nasty business, organised crime appears still to be involved, and the prevalence of the activity has (at least visibly) increased. Unbiased commentary is hard to come by.
What is clear is that decriminalisation is no panacea - though I still think a Royal Commission would be a good idea.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
And the Tories won Rutland and Melton by 23,000 so the fuck what?
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
No. The common-sense position is to say that if someone has been diagnosed by a doctor and is taking steps to transition then they are transgender. If they are not doing so and still have all their male genitalia then they are a male and should not be on all-women shortlists or in women's loos and changing rooms.
A man claiming to "identify" as a woman without taking any actual steps to make that a reality and without any medical diagnosis of his condition and wanting to take the place of women is not a victim but a bully. And, frankly, women have had enough of men bullying them and telling them that they know best. Now we have some of them telling us what it is to be a woman. Well, they can fuck off, frankly.
People who are genuinely transgender deserve all necessary help and support. But too many of those claiming to be fighting for transgender rights seem to me to want "rights" on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and at the expense of women. And there are too many who are too scared to call them out on this.
I'm glad to hear it. But leaflets does not change the issue with that PPB. The Lib Dems don't need to forget about Brexit, but they cannot afford to be defined by it.
I wouldn't mind betting that more people in my city have seen our leaflets than have seen our PPB... even I haven't watched it, to be honest.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
And the Tories won Rutland and Melton by 23,000 so the fuck what?
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
Rutland is a safe Tory council.
There are 2 parliamentary seats in Kensington and Chelsea, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and the Tories won a majority of over 8000 in the 2 seats combined at the last general election.
Kensington is the poorer and more marginal of the two and Labour have won it in the past even before 2017 when it has been separated from Chelsea
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
And the Tories won Rutland and Melton by 23,000 so the fuck what?
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
Until 1974 Kensington had two constituencies. Kensington North had some very poor areas and always voted Labour by modest majorities. Kensington South,however, was the safest Tory seat in the country at the time. When a single seat was created from 1974, it would normally be expected to be a farly comfortable Tory seat - though nothing like its Kensington South predecessor.Labour did come within 1000 votes of winning the seat at the 1988 by election.
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of extreme wealth but far from universally so*. And even the Haves don't like the idea of their children not having the opportunities they had - the relative decline in housing affordability is the key, not the absolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
And the Tories won Rutland and Melton by 23,000 so the fuck what?
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
Rutland is a safe Tory council.
There are 2 parliamentary seats in Kensington and Chelsea, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and the Tories won a majority of over 8000 in the 2 seats combined at the last general election.
Kensington is the poorer and more marginal of the two and Labour have won it in the past even before 2017 when it has been separated from Chelsea
In your mind maybe, most people living in Kensington and Chelsea are multi millionaires and are more worried by Labour councils slashing the value of their wealth.
If you are going to go on about getting more people on the housing ladder speak to the LDs, who both want to keep free movement and along with the Residents Associations are the NIMBYiest party around
29% of children in Kensington and Chelsea live in poverty, it's an area of bsolute position.
*(the London figure is 37%, I'm not denying K&C is a richer area than most, for sure)
29% is less than a third, as I said the majority of Kensington and Chelsea residents are very wealthy indeed.
The 'Haves' are richer in asset terms than their parents could even dream of so again your politics of resentment and envy fails there in Kensington and Chelsea too
I'm not on the doorstep preaching this, I'm observing voter shifts and trying to understand it. Why do you think Labour's popularity in London is at record highs?
Well if Labour win Kensington and Chelsea on Thursday I will admit I was wrong, that is a big if however
Good point because at the GE Labour got a whooping in Kensington, didn't they.
Labour won Kensington by just 20 votes, the Tories won Chelsea and Fulham by thousands
And the Tories won Rutland and Melton by 23,000 so the fuck what?
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
Rutland is a safe Tory council.
There are 2 parliamentary seats in Kensington and Chelsea, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and the Tories won a majority of over 8000 in the 2 seats combined at the last general election.
Kensington is the poorer and more marginal of the two and Labour have won it in the past even before 2017 when it has been separated from Chelsea
So what, they won Kensington and Chelsea and that is the borough up for election on Thursday not just half of it which they only lost by 20 votes anyway
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
No. The common-sense position is to say that if someone has been diagnosed by a doctor and is taking steps to transition then they are transgender. If they are not doing so and still have all their male genitalia then they are a male and should not be on all-women shortlists or in women's loos and changing rooms.
A man claiming to "identify" as a woman without taking any actual steps to make that a reality and without any medical diagnosis of his condition and wanting to take the place of women is not a victim but a bully. And, frankly, women have had enough of men bullying them and telling them that they know best. Now we have some of them telling us what it is to be a woman. Well, they can fuck off, frankly.
People who are genuinely transgender deserve all necessary help and support. But too many of those claiming to be fighting for transgender rights seem to me to want "rights" on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and at the expense of women. And there are too many who are too scared to call them out on this.
Yeah I agree with you up to the last paragraph. Are there really people pretending to be women to benefit from some equal opportunity policies? Given the discrimination that trans people suffer - I wouldn't have thought that would be particularly successful...
"Councillors, ex-candidates and a former member of Labour's National Constitutional Committee were among those who said they would cut up their membership cards in protest at the announcement.
They said the decision was made "without any debate or consultation with women members".
Several prominent Labour women complained they were 'rarely listened to' "Sex is not a self-defined characteristic and it is disingenuous for Labour to pretend that it is," the group wrote.
"We are rarely listened to, as this very real issue shows."
"A party spokesperson told Sky News: "All-women shortlists are and always have been open to all women, which of course includes trans women.""
Animal Farm tastic !
I know people on both sides of this argument who feel very strongly. The argument for the party's position is that we really can't get involved in physical examinations to determine degrees of gender and the common sense solution is to let people decide what they are. The argument against is that even after the op a trans woman won't have experienced the difficulties that women often have as they grow up even in today's society.
I've avoided taking a view, as it's not something I'm really qualified to judge, but I can see both sides. Regardless, though, it's the sort of issue that we should not be preoccupied with as the main opposition.
It’s a pretty good argument against all-one classification shortlists though. Surely better to take the best candidates - and if there is discrimination anywhere in the process to eliminate it at source
Since when has Teresa May made a robust response to anything?
She's often been quite robust in resisting the demand to do something...
She sometimes manages simultaneously to resist demands to do something while also doing it and at the same time attacking others for wanting to do it. It's government by gaslighting.
» show previous quotes Why not just make it a driving licence, you can get one regardless of whether you drive a car.
Because they're quite expensive.
ydoethur, surely £20 is not expensive
To get a driving licence you have to be have passed the test to be able drive. That is extremely expensive. Plus what do you do if people lose their licence because of offences?
Richard, You can get a provisional whether you drive or not.
Here in the US the state Departments of Motor Vehicles issue non-driving photo IDs to those that can’t or don’t want to drive.
Exactly and easy to get a provisional here for 20 quid, driving or not.
Comments
I must say it’s a delight to watch the Brexiters froth and spin. I’d have more sympathy if there was any kind of plan for Brexit. But there isn’t. Instead it continues to fall to the EU to write the actual negotiating papers, and to Remainers to figure out how the hell to do it.
All Brexiters do is grizzle, impotently.
In the absence of logical argument, no wonder some seek psychosexual reasons for the Brexit derangement.
Roll on a referendum on the deal.
We can’t go back, but we certainly ain’t going forward.
Regarding our conversation yesterday, I note that half of Australia has decriminalised prostitution for a while now. There is evidence which tends to support both your and my views on the matter - while there do seem to be improvements in terms of health and reduction in coercion, overall it still looks a pretty nasty business, organised crime appears still to be involved, and the prevalence of the activity has (at least visibly) increased.
Unbiased commentary is hard to come by.
What is clear is that decriminalisation is no panacea - though I still think a Royal Commission would be a good idea.
Labour won Kensington at the GE where all those millionaire Labour voters are supposedly so worried about a Labour government putting up taxes, making them poorer, etc, as you would have it.
All of that plus the poor record of the Labour councillors who have taken the voters for granted here for so long.
A man claiming to "identify" as a woman without taking any actual steps to make that a reality and without any medical diagnosis of his condition and wanting to take the place of women is not a victim but a bully. And, frankly, women have had enough of men bullying them and telling them that they know best. Now we have some of them telling us what it is to be a woman. Well, they can fuck off, frankly.
People who are genuinely transgender deserve all necessary help and support. But too many of those claiming to be fighting for transgender rights seem to me to want "rights" on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and at the expense of women. And there are too many who are too scared to call them out on this.
There are 2 parliamentary seats in Kensington and Chelsea, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and the Tories won a majority of over 8000 in the 2 seats combined at the last general election.
Kensington is the poorer and more marginal of the two and Labour have won it in the past even before 2017 when it has been separated from Chelsea
theylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensingtontheylostkensington
Are there really people pretending to be women to benefit from some equal opportunity policies? Given the discrimination that trans people suffer - I wouldn't have thought that would be particularly successful...