Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
Whether the speech "got in the way" is clearly very subjective to interpretation. Along that grey zone you could draw the line at various strictness levels, all of which are balancing the right of free speech with accepting consequences for some speech. You may feel that line is drawn in the perfectly right place, but others can believe the balance is drawn in the wrong place while not being a simpleton.
Your rights end where mine begin. You can advocate what you like. And I can respond accordingly.
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
Remember how you used to swan past the queue for the women's loos with a quiet sense of satisfaction on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
The Unisex sit down only version means you can get in line, mate.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
Do you believe that trans women are women and trans men are men? Because if so the idea of forcing a man to go to a women's prison or vice-versa because they didn't fill in the correct paper work should be troubling.
They are absolutely not. You cannot change your sex, however, if you have gone through the medical procedure (and had your rapey penis removed) then im willing to accept your delusion that this has changed your sex.
There are numerous cases of assaults that have happened in areas that should have been woman only
Even that isn't as eay as it sounds, if you are going to make it fair.
Is £7,500 in Newton Stewart able to purchase the same amount and quality of education as £7,500 in Harrogate, Knutsford, Westminster or Winchester?
Of course some schools will always be better than others. But addressing the funding gap is an essential first step if one wishes to transform the sentiment "the best way to get rid of private schools is to make the state sector so good that nobody would choose to use them" from platitude to realistic goal. The current funding per pupil advantage of the private sector over the state sector is of the order TIMES THREE. It's the biggest around and is widening not shrinking. It's a scandal of quite shocking proportions. That we tolerate it shows that we are not serious about equality of opportunity. It's not a high priority value in this country. We pay lip service at best.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
I appreciate you being willing to learn. It is generally a good assumption that anything that pops into your head based on ethnicity is a racial stereotype that members of that group are very tired of. For Native Americans, this includes casino ownership, tomahawks, "How!", Tonto, Pocahontas, battle cries etc.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
I don’t struggle to care. I do struggle to get involved because I find it a difficult subject. I don’t want to dump on trans people, who have a pretty shit time of it. Equally, some trans people are way too dismissive of the concerns of others.
Also, I get the strong impression that a lot of the loudest voices on both sides are professing certainty about a whole load of stuff that remains poorly understood. This debate will look very different in 50 years’ time, but I’m not sure which bits will look antiquated and bizarre. Possibly all of it.
I completely avoid twitter discussions of the issue because a) I don't have fixed views on it and b) not having fixed views seems to set off those full of passionate intensity on both sides.
It's a bit abstract (and according to polling not unwelcome to many US voters), like calling someone a capitalist or a reactionary. Unless it relates to something concrete that people dislike, they categorise it no more than vaguely concerning. The disappearance of the Soviet Union into fading memory has somewhat defused the issue, in the same way that most people didn't really care much that Corbyn hobnobbed with the IRA.
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
Trump wouldn't use abstract descriptions. If Sanders becomes the nominee, Trump will attack him personally and on the specific impact of some key policies, most notably healthcare. He'd have an open goal - Sanders's proposals would be framed as 'he wants to take away your healthcare plan'. In fact that concern has already been raised by unions, some of which are particularly proud of the health-insurance deals they've negotiated for their members:
I can't see Sanders winning against Trump for exactly that reason: it's all very well promising shiny new Medicare-for-all, but voters will rightly be a bit sceptical of that, and therefore fearful that the end result will be neither their existing health insurance nor a quality state-provided alternative.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
Whether the speech "got in the way" is clearly very subjective to interpretation. Along that grey zone you could draw the line at various strictness levels, all of which are balancing the right of free speech with accepting consequences for some speech. You may feel that line is drawn in the perfectly right place, but others can believe the balance is drawn in the wrong place while not being a simpleton.
Your rights end where mine begin. You can advocate what you like. And I can respond accordingly.
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
There was the example of foster parents being stripped of their job as a foster parent because they supported UKIP. Or Germaine Greer being inhibited from speaking at colleges due to her not accepting self-identification of sex.
I think you severely underestimate the extent to which the middle and upper classes will go to give their kids the best education possible.
This includes sending them abroad - as already happens with the thousands of rich kids from developing countries who are educated in the UK every year.
Perhaps. But I would be prepared to find out.
This is an omelette and eggs thing. For me, the omelette is such an attractive prospect that I can happily use up a lot of eggs if needs be.
You, OTOH, won't use any eggs at all because you don't even want an omelette.
I know you think this authoritarian left rubbish is somehow brave and charming, but it really isn't, and an awful lot of people don't find it funny at all. If the Left wants to come for private education, then the Right will make an omelette of everything the Left loves - and they're a lot better at it!
Can I speak up for @kinabalu. There are plenty of people here on PB who bring us the benefit of their experience in many fields, and beyond politics and betting! That said, we often make great declarations about "the public", about those perhaps less well informed, or normal people. There are precious few of those normal people on here. As such, I think @kinabalu's contributions are extremely important.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
No, it's not as simple as that.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
Your extremely hypothetical situation is 5 years away, what do you think will be happening in the interim period? There're a lot of 'events' to get through before a Labour PM turns up.
The old comforting trope about the SNP bringing in Thatcher is brought up by Labour again and again (usually when the SNP aren't being helpful to Labour) to vastly diminishing effect. I seem to recall someone on here suggesting that the SNP might be punished by voters at the last GE for forcing it on Labour at a time inconvenient to them, how did that go?
Probably nearer to 4 years now.The next election is unlikely to be later than May or June 2024. If the former, this Parliament would be dissolved at the end of March 2024.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
It’s an interesting subject to observe from a sociology point of view.
I think most people are wary of commenting on what is a difficult and delicate balance of rights - mainly because those who are speaking in the debate are ideologist extremists on both sides, who believe that to disagree with 1% of what they have to say means that you’re fair game to be hounded out of your job.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
Do you believe that trans women are women and trans men are men? Because if so the idea of forcing a man to go to a women's prison or vice-versa because they didn't fill in the correct paper work should be troubling.
It depends. I think some are, while I think some have psychological issues, and I don't want to judge which is which.
I believe I'm not an expert to comment on this subject, which is why I lean towards a default opinion that medical experts should be the ones who get involved.
Toby. Bringing his bestest game right there on behalf of all who treasure what our forefathers fought and died for. The right to say what the fuck we want without snowflakes answering back and being all rude and nasty.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
I appreciate you being willing to learn. It is generally a good assumption that anything that pops into your head based on ethnicity is a racial stereotype that members of that group are very tired of. For Native Americans, this includes casino ownership, tomahawks, "How!", Tonto, Pocahontas, battle cries etc.
I see. I always thought of casino ownership grants for native Americans as a rather ludicrous manifestation of American white guilt. We stole your land, we murdered your ancestors, we coralled you in areas we didn;t want so......er........here's a casino....???? grotesque.
... on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
What???!!!!!
I can relate to that. At a busy show etc the womens queue is massive while the mens queue is quickly moving and complete stoic silence. Get to the urinal and its eyes up, nobody says a word, job done, go.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
Well, she's demonstrably not Native American, and I had no idea there was such a stereotype. Without that knowledge, I think it's pretty clear that I am mocking Warren, and only Warren. But I am happy to be educated otherwise, and withdraw the comment, with apologies.
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
You do realise this is how it works in many countries? He is unable to pass any new laws but continues to carry out the responsibilities of being the Taoseich, particularly for state affairs until a replacement has been found. His resignation means that he has accepted that he will not attempt to form a coalition govenment, at least not as the major party.
... on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
What???!!!!!
I can relate to that. At a busy show etc the womens queue is massive while the mens queue is quickly moving and complete stoic silence. Get to the urinal and its eyes up, nobody says a word, job done, go.
I think you severely underestimate the extent to which the middle and upper classes will go to give their kids the best education possible.
This includes sending them abroad - as already happens with the thousands of rich kids from developing countries who are educated in the UK every year.
Perhaps. But I would be prepared to find out.
This is an omelette and eggs thing. For me, the omelette is such an attractive prospect that I can happily use up a lot of eggs if needs be.
You, OTOH, won't use any eggs at all because you don't even want an omelette.
I know you think this authoritarian left rubbish is somehow brave and charming, but it really isn't, and an awful lot of people don't find it funny at all. If the Left wants to come for private education, then the Right will make an omelette of everything the Left loves - and they're a lot better at it!
Can I speak up for @kinabalu. There are plenty of people here on PB who bring us the benefit of their experience in many fields, and beyond politics and betting! That said, we often make great declarations about "the public", about those perhaps less well informed, or normal people. There are precious few of those normal people on here. As such, I think @kinabalu's contributions are extremely important.
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
You do realise this is how it works in many countries? He is unable to pass any new laws but continues to carry out the responsibilities of being the Taoseich, particularly for state affairs until a replacement has been found. His resignation means that he has accepted that he will not attempt to form a coalition govenment, at least not as the major party.
Its a terrible electoral system used primarily on one silly continent.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
Whether the speech "got in the way" is clearly very subjective to interpretation. Along that grey zone you could draw the line at various strictness levels, all of which are balancing the right of free speech with accepting consequences for some speech. You may feel that line is drawn in the perfectly right place, but others can believe the balance is drawn in the wrong place while not being a simpleton.
Your rights end where mine begin. You can advocate what you like. And I can respond accordingly.
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
There was the example of foster parents being stripped of their job as a foster parent because they supported UKIP. Or Germaine Greer being inhibited from speaking at colleges due to her not accepting self-identification of sex.
The second one does not bother me at all. If students decide they want to make that a hygiene criterion, that is their right. I disagree with them but no one is entitled to a platform just by virtue of having opinions.
The first is an example of inappropriate criteria being used in assessing foster parent suitability. It is about misuse of public powers, though there was concern that their views might have an impact on the Eastern European children that were to be placed with them. When placing children for fostering, the focus is on the interests of the children. It is easy to see how some views might disbar a couple from being appropriate foster parents for specific children.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
It’s an interesting subject to observe from a sociology point of view.
I think most people are wary of commenting on what is a difficult and delicate balance of rights - mainly because those who are speaking in the debate are ideologist extremists on both sides, who believe that to disagree with 1% of what they have to say means that you’re fair game to be hounded out of your job.
Interesting thing. I had assumed that this was a pretty fringe issue, in numerical terms, but it turns out that the estimated UK population has around 250k - 500k transgender folk within it; somewhere around 0.5% of the population (for comparison, that's about how many accountants there are in the UK, for example).
I guess I'd assumed it wasn't as statistically significant as that, but it seems like a bigger thing.
No knowledge on scottish politics but does anyone think Labour would do better if they switched to backing a second referendum on Scottish independence? Whatever they're doing now doesn't seem to be working.
Most of those thinking that have made the switch to the SNP, leaving behind those that don't want independence. It would be a case of hoping independence supporters will switch back without upsetting those that have stuck with the Party. Similar issue to Labour leavers.
From the graph of vote share, looks like they lost half their support to SNP. So there's a big pool to fish in.
I suspect also that 5-10 more years of Boris will make defending the union a tougher sell.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
No, it's not as simple as that.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
Your extremely hypothetical situation is 5 years away, what do you think will be happening in the interim period? There're a lot of 'events' to get through before a Labour PM turns up.
The old comforting trope about the SNP bringing in Thatcher is brought up by Labour again and again (usually when the SNP aren't being helpful to Labour) to vastly diminishing effect. I seem to recall someone on here suggesting that the SNP might be punished by voters at the last GE for forcing it on Labour at a time inconvenient to them, how did that go?
Of course the situation is 5 years away, I don't expect a GE before then. Do you? I suspect that instead you're very wishfully thinking that Scotland will have been allowed to secede in the meantime, but I'll stick to potential rather than fanciful scenarios.
Yes, 1979 is fading from memory. However, if the SNP does contrive to force a GE by actively voting with the Tories to prevent the formation of a minority Labour government, a scenario which I see as realistic*, then my point is that those memories will be rapidly revived. Actively bringing down a Labour government is very different to the false parallel you try and draw the electoral impact of the vote to bring a premature end to the last Tory government in 2019.
* You can always deny that the SNP would do that if you disagree.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
I appreciate you being willing to learn. It is generally a good assumption that anything that pops into your head based on ethnicity is a racial stereotype that members of that group are very tired of. For Native Americans, this includes casino ownership, tomahawks, "How!", Tonto, Pocahontas, battle cries etc.
I see. I always thought of casino ownership grants for native Americans as a rather ludicrous manifestation of American white guilt. We stole your land, we murdered your ancestors, we coralled you in areas we didn;t want so......er........here's a casino....???? grotesque.
The context behind it is that Native American nations signed repeated treaties with the United States to divide up lands between them. These were treaties that were repeatedly betrayed by the US government as they took the land previously allocated to the native states, and ethnically cleansing the Native Americans into smaller and smaller territories, often on lower quality land than they originally owned. (E.g. the trail of tears entailing a forced march of the Five Tribes from the fertile north Georgia area to the arid land of Oklahoma. Eventually even these reservations were annexed by the US government, although they signed further agreements that the reservations would retain some semi-national rights over their local laws (equivalent to state laws). Some of these reservations decided to legalize gambling, in a similar manner to states like New Jersey and Nevada.
... on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
What???!!!!!
I can relate to that. At a busy show etc the womens queue is massive while the mens queue is quickly moving and complete stoic silence. Get to the urinal and its eyes up, nobody says a word, job done, go.
It makes a difference. Some restaurants I have been to in Manhattan recently had unisex loos and being forced to wait is quite a culture shock.
I also did a double take once at the wash basin afterwards when realising the person next to me was a woman.
... on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
What???!!!!!
I can relate to that. At a busy show etc the womens queue is massive while the mens queue is quickly moving and complete stoic silence. Get to the urinal and its eyes up, nobody says a word, job done, go.
You leave before the group hug?
Is that what those who don't find time to wash their hands are doing instead?
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
I appreciate you being willing to learn. It is generally a good assumption that anything that pops into your head based on ethnicity is a racial stereotype that members of that group are very tired of. For Native Americans, this includes casino ownership, tomahawks, "How!", Tonto, Pocahontas, battle cries etc.
I see. I always thought of casino ownership grants for native Americans as a rather ludicrous manifestation of American white guilt. We stole your land, we murdered your ancestors, we coralled you in areas we didn;t want so......er........here's a casino....???? grotesque.
I thought it was due to a loophole in the laws by which the reservations were transferred to Native American ownership (ie that the US federal and state government had no right to regulate activities there anymore). Whether the loophole can't be closed, or if no one wants to for the reason @contrarian describes, seems moot.
Anyway, it seems I was trying to draw an unhelpful distinction between an ethnic trait, and the above process which is simply an accident of history. As below, I am happy to stand corrected that the latter can also be used negatively.
Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If people think you’re an arse, they can respond accordingly. This isn’t complicated stuff. You’d have thought Toby Young would have learned that by now. But perhaps it’s more lucrative for him to play the victim.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
.
Your rights end where mine begin. You can advocate what you like. And I can respond accordingly.
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
There was the example of foster parents being stripped of their job as a foster parent because they supported UKIP. Or Germaine Greer being inhibited from speaking at colleges due to her not accepting self-identification of sex.
The second one does not bother me at all. If students decide they want to make that a hygiene criterion, that is their right. I disagree with them but no one is entitled to a platform just by virtue of having opinions.
The first is an example of inappropriate criteria being used in assessing foster parent suitability. It is about misuse of public powers, though there was concern that their views might have an impact on the Eastern European children that were to be placed with them. When placing children for fostering, the focus is on the interests of the children. It is easy to see how some views might disbar a couple from being appropriate foster parents for specific children.
Often "no platforming" is done by the threat of violent protest forcing up the security cost of an event beyond what is affordable to the organizers, forcing them to rescind the invite. It is hard not to see that as a threat to free speech.
This is why a second term would be far more damaging than the first.
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics ever. Homophobe.
I judge people on their actions and views, not their sexuality. In this case his actions have been a disgrace and show him to be a danger to democracy.
The problem is that you’re just not going to change behaviour at the top end. You’ll end up with groups of middle class parents hiring private teachers and running their own ‘revision classes’ or home schooling. Much better to concentrate all the efforts on making the experience better for those at the bottom, and let the market do the rest.
But as I said, we don't want to change that behaviour. It's great that parents do things to help their kids learn and develop over and above whatever the school they attend is doing. As for help the bottom 10% and "let the market do the rest", first bit is fine, more than fine, but the second bit is a no no. The whole point is that schooling should NOT be treated as a market where money talks. That is the problem we are trying to address here! If you don't think it IS a problem, OK. This is precisely what I meant when I said that you don't want the omelette. Circles here.
I think you severely underestimate the extent to which the middle and upper classes will go to give their kids the best education possible.
This includes sending them abroad - as already happens with the thousands of rich kids from developing countries who are educated in the UK every year.
Perhaps. But I would be prepared to find out.
This is an omelette and eggs thing. For me, the omelette is such an attractive prospect that I can happily use up a lot of eggs if needs be.
You, OTOH, won't use any eggs at all because you don't even want an omelette.
I know you think this authoritarian left rubbish is somehow brave and charming, but it really isn't, and an awful lot of people don't find it funny at all. If the Left wants to come for private education, then the Right will make an omelette of everything the Left loves - and they're a lot better at it!
Can I speak up for @kinabalu. There are plenty of people here on PB who bring us the benefit of their experience in many fields, and beyond politics and betting! That said, we often make great declarations about "the public", about those perhaps less well informed, or normal people. There are precious few of those normal people on here. As such, I think @kinabalu's contributions are extremely important.
Comparing Corbyn's NHS policies to Bernie's M4A indicated you were ignorant of American politics. But yes, I admit, as those articles indicate, you could also espouse the same opinion because you're a shill or just plain stupid.
There's hundreds of similar articles written by a range of people; some advocating in favour, some against. Even the presence of the latter indicate to me that there's a reasonable case to be made.
But, since you don't seem disposed to be reasonable (or even civil) on this point, I shan't be engaging further on it.
The header is misleading in that the overwhelming majority of MPs in Scotland would be likely to sustain a non-Tory Government. It is correct in terms of Labour's ability to form a majority Government , but that would not be necessary for Starmer to become PM.
I don’t know, in 1979 the SNP ousted a Labour government and helped usher in Thatcher and eighteen years of Tory rule.
The Lib Dems were the coalition partners of the Tories for five years.
PS - So about SLAB MPs getting an incumbency boost.
The 'Something would have turned up to save Labour' myth re-surfaces for the millionth time....
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
I appreciate you being willing to learn. It is generally a good assumption that anything that pops into your head based on ethnicity is a racial stereotype that members of that group are very tired of. For Native Americans, this includes casino ownership, tomahawks, "How!", Tonto, Pocahontas, battle cries etc.
I see. I always thought of casino ownership grants for native Americans as a rather ludicrous manifestation of American white guilt. We stole your land, we murdered your ancestors, we coralled you in areas we didn;t want so......er........here's a casino....???? grotesque.
The context behind it is that Native American nations signed repeated treaties with the United States to divide up lands between them. These were treaties that were repeatedly betrayed by the US government as they took the land previously allocated to the native states, and ethnically cleansing the Native Americans into smaller and smaller territories, often on lower quality land than they originally owned. (E.g. the trail of tears entailing a forced march of the Five Tribes from the fertile north Georgia area to the arid land of Oklahoma. Eventually even these reservations were annexed by the US government, although they signed further agreements that the reservations would retain some semi-national rights over their local laws (equivalent to state laws). Some of these reservations decided to legalize gambling, in a similar manner to states like New Jersey and Nevada.
Forced off their land by immigrants! It’s not a history of which to be proud, is it.
It's self defeating, though. The SNP are only interested in supporting a Labour PM if they are assured of an independence referendum in return (preferably quickly).
If they win the referendum, they are gone within a year or two and bingo, the majority is gone (and also why on earth are SNP MPs turning up to vote on matters that don't affect them while the break discussions are ongoing: that would not play well in the rest of the country).
If they lose, they have no further interest in supporting the Labour PM anyway.
No, it's not as simple as that.
The SNP should be fearful of what might happen if they vote with the Tories to vote down a Labour PM in the initial vote of confidence on the grounds that Labour will not commit to a vote on Scottish secession within the lifetime of that parliament. Let's say Starmer forms a government, announces a progressive programme which is generally well received across the UK including by the majority in Scotland, only for the SNP to ensure that the programme is stillborn.
If that happened, there would be another GE. That might suit Labour, much as a GE in the Autumn of 2019 was what suited Johnson.
The last time something similar happened, when the SNP brought down a Labour government in 1979, it set them back for a (properly defined) generation.
Your extremely hypothetical situation is 5 years away, what do you think will be happening in the interim period? There're a lot of 'events' to get through before a Labour PM turns up.
The old comforting trope about the SNP bringing in Thatcher is brought up by Labour again and again (usually when the SNP aren't being helpful to Labour) to vastly diminishing effect. I seem to recall someone on here suggesting that the SNP might be punished by voters at the last GE for forcing it on Labour at a time inconvenient to them, how did that go?
Of course the situation is 5 years away, I don't expect a GE before then. Do you? I suspect that instead you're very wishfully thinking that Scotland will have been allowed to secede in the meantime, but I'll stick to potential rather than fanciful scenarios.
Yes, 1979 is fading from memory. However, if the SNP does contrive to force a GE by actively voting with the Tories to prevent the formation of a minority Labour government, a scenario which I see as realistic*, then my point is that those memories will be rapidly revived. Actively bringing down a Labour government is very different to the false parallel you try and draw the electoral impact of the vote to bring a premature end to the last Tory government in 2019.
* You can always deny that the SNP would do that if you disagree.
First half of 2024 is most likely date of next GE.
Of course the situation is 5 years away, I don't expect a GE before then. Do you? I suspect that instead you're very wishfully thinking that Scotland will have been allowed to secede in the meantime, but I'll stick to potential rather than fanciful scenarios.
Yes, 1979 is fading from memory. However, if the SNP does contrive to force a GE by actively voting with the Tories to prevent the formation of a minority Labour government, a scenario which I see as realistic*, then my point is that those memories will be rapidly revived. Actively bringing down a Labour government is very different to the false parallel you try and draw the electoral impact of the vote to bring a premature end to the last Tory government in 2019.
* You can always deny that the SNP would do that if you disagree.
It wasn't me who originally drew the parallel which I agree is bollocks.
Ironically Labour is the most nostalgic British party, every wing of it in fact (possibly because the present is so hard to take, and as for the future..). Fantasising about a rerun of 1979 for the SNP seems preferable to working out why SLab is a 4th place irrelevance in Scotland.
It's a bit abstract (and according to polling not unwelcome to many US voters), like calling someone a capitalist or a reactionary. Unless it relates to something concrete that people dislike, they categorise it no more than vaguely concerning. The disappearance of the Soviet Union into fading memory has somewhat defused the issue, in the same way that most people didn't really care much that Corbyn hobnobbed with the IRA.
Calling Bernie a communist would still be more damaging if it stuck, but that is short of actual evidence.
Trump wouldn't use abstract descriptions. If Sanders becomes the nominee, Trump will attack him personally and on the specific impact of some key policies, most notably healthcare. He'd have an open goal - Sanders's proposals would be framed as 'he wants to take away your healthcare plan'. In fact that concern has already been raised by unions, some of which are particularly proud of the health-insurance deals they've negotiated for their members:
I can't see Sanders winning against Trump for exactly that reason: it's all very well promising shiny new Medicare-for-all, but voters will rightly be a bit sceptical of that, and therefore fearful that the end result will be neither their existing health insurance nor a quality state-provided alternative.
I agree, and I think that needs a pivot - "we won't stop you insuring but we'll make health care funding so attractive for free that nobody will want to pay for insurance". It got close to that in Britain in 2008, when the private insurance companies were ringing alarm bells that people were no longer bothering to insure.
Can't she just open a casino on her ancestors' lands?
Edit: borrowing money in the hope of using that money to win the presidency sound very much like the sort of capitalism that Ms Warren has seemed dead set against thus far.
Ah, racist slurs. Never change PB.
Nothing to do with racism and everything to do with bogus claims by this candidate.
It's everything to do with racism. You are connecting native American heritage with raking in easy money from casinos. This is an old stereotype that every native American has to deal with. It's like a joke about Jews being money lenders or African Americans being strong from slavery.
I had no idea there was such a stereotype regarding native Americans. Every day is a school dy.
cries etc.
I see. I always thought of casino ownership grants for native Americans as a rather ludicrous manifestation of American white guilt. We stole your land, we murdered your ancestors, we coralled you in areas we didn;t want so......er........here's a casino....???? grotesque.
The context behind it is that Native American nations signed repeated treaties with the United States to divide up lands between them. These were treaties that were repeatedly betrayed by the US government as they took the land previously allocated to the native states, and ethnically cleansing the Native Americans into smaller and smaller territories, often on lower quality land than they originally owned. (E.g. the trail of tears entailing a forced march of the Five Tribes from the fertile north Georgia area to the arid land of Oklahoma. Eventually even these reservations were annexed by the US government, although they signed further agreements that the reservations would retain some semi-national rights over their local laws (equivalent to state laws). Some of these reservations decided to legalize gambling, in a similar manner to states like New Jersey and Nevada.
Forced off their land by immigrants! It’s not a history of which to be proud, is it.
The President in charge of the Trail of Tears, which had a huge death toll, was Andrew Jackson. He was expressly ordered not to do so by the Supreme Court, but he told them they could not enforce anything. Trump has described Jackson as his favourite president and has put his portrait in pride of place in the Oval Office.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
Good to see you back, I must say. All of this "Corbyn just lost a Brexit election to Johnson in the UK therefore Trump hammers Sanders in the US" is fast moving from opinion to trope. In fact, I fear it is too late to combat because it has completed that journey.
So you would be ok with someone losing their job for being a Remain-supporter?
If it didn’t affect how that person did their job, no. That would be unfair dismissal and no doubt expensive for the employer.
If it got in the way, yes. The Conservative party have just had a clear-out on exactly that basis. It’s ultimately their choice that they’ve decided to dispose of a big section of their most talented politicians.
.
Your rights end where mine begin. You can advocate what you like. And I can respond accordingly.
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
There was the example of foster parents being stripped of their job as a foster parent because they supported UKIP. Or Germaine Greer being inhibited from speaking at colleges due to her not accepting self-identification of sex.
The second one does not bother me at all. If students decide they want to make that a hygiene criterion, that is their right. I disagree with them but no one is entitled to a platform just by virtue of having opinions.
The first is an example of inappropriate criteria being used in assessing foster parent suitability. It is about misuse of public powers, though there was concern that their views might have an impact on the Eastern European children that were to be placed with them. When placing children for fostering, the focus is on the interests of the children. It is easy to see how some views might disbar a couple from being appropriate foster parents for specific children.
Often "no platforming" is done by the threat of violent protest forcing up the security cost of an event beyond what is affordable to the organizers, forcing them to rescind the invite. It is hard not to see that as a threat to free speech.
That’s a question of enforcing existing public order laws.
This is why a second term would be far more damaging than the first.
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics. Homophobe.
Firstly you're ridiculous, and secondly you're wrong, as Vice President is a more senior position than Director of National Intelligence.
What's ridiculous about pointing out how two-faced lefties are?
And no there have been no openly gay vice presidents.
Where have I been two-faced? I have never called someone a homophobe for criticizing a left wing gay politician, unless the criticism specifically referred to their homosexuality.
This is why a second term would be far more damaging than the first.
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics. Homophobe.
Firstly you're ridiculous, and secondly you're wrong, as Vice President is a more senior position than Director of National Intelligence.
What's ridiculous about pointing out how two-faced lefties are?
And no there have been no openly gay vice presidents.
James Buchanan's friend, William Rufus King, VP to President Franklin Pierce, seems about the closest there has been: from wiki:
Buchanan had a close and intimate relationship with William Rufus King, an Alabama politician who briefly served as vice president under Franklin Pierce. Buchanan and King lived together in a Washington boardinghouse, from 1834 until King's departure for France in 1844. Though such a practice was then common, King also referred to the relationship as a "communion," and the two attended social functions together. Contemporaries also noted the closeness. Andrew Jackson called King "Miss Nancy" and prominent Democrat Aaron V. Brown referred to King as Buchanan's "better half," "wife" and "Aunt Fancy" (the last being a 19th-century euphemism for an effeminate man).
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
You do realise this is how it works in many countries? He is unable to pass any new laws but continues to carry out the responsibilities of being the Taoseich, particularly for state affairs until a replacement has been found. His resignation means that he has accepted that he will not attempt to form a coalition govenment, at least not as the major party.
Its a terrible electoral system used primarily on one silly continent.
It's got nothing to do with the electoral system, same situation arose in 2010 with Brown staying on till a Govt could be formed, May also remained as PM when she lost her majority, in theory another Govt in 17 could have been formed
This is why a second term would be far more damaging than the first.
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics. Homophobe.
Firstly you're ridiculous, and secondly you're wrong, as Vice President is a more senior position than Director of National Intelligence.
What's ridiculous about pointing out how two-faced lefties are?
And no there have been no openly gay vice presidents.
Where have I been two-faced? I have never called someone a homophobe for criticizing a left wing gay politician, unless the criticism specifically referred to their homosexuality.
You called someone a racist for criticising a left wing politician.
Is it just me who struggles to care or get involved with the whole "Trans vs Feminist" debate? People seem to get deep passions on either side, as there have been on other issues in the past, but while I was passionately in favour of equality for LGBT etc in marriage etc on this one issue I'm struggling to give a damn or to find it a matter of huge concern.
On the one hand I'm not seeing how suggesting that Trans people should get medical advice and not just self-declare is awful. Trans people should get the help and support they require, but that help and support should start with medical advice.
On the other hand I'm not seeing how self-declaration if it occurs is a real threat to women. Yes in theory people could self-declare to try and abuse the system but the chances of people actually doing that seem slim to nil.
The whole thing seems much ado about nothing to me. I just feel like unless I'm missing something, then I've not got a bone in this argument and I'm struggling to see why I should care whether self-declaration occurs or not.
I mostly agree. Although there has been at least one case of a trans woman sexually assaulting other inmates after having been put into a women's prison.
Well Germany has nothing more to be gained from the destruction the Euro has done to less productive countries so why not.
There does seem to be ever increasing strains in the EU especially over the budgets and just wait until Barnier facilitates no deal by changing the goalpost on the EU original Canada deal offer to the UK
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics ever. Homophobe.
Being a gay man is not a qualification for high public office. Ronnie Kray as Home Secretary in the 60s, for example. A better choice than Roy Jenkins? Not for me.
Pretty much? In the US you can go bankrupt because somebody calls you an ambulance. You can die because you can't afford insulin. There is nothing close to that here. Vague threats of Tory NHS privatisation are not remotely comparable to a promise to fix the nightmare of US healthcare costs.
Good to see you back, I must say. All of this "Corbyn just lost a Brexit election to Johnson in the UK therefore Trump hammers Sanders in the US" is fast moving from opinion to trope. In fact, I fear it is too late to combat because it has completed that journey.
I'm only really here for the us elections at this point. There's not much which I care about to predict in uk politics for a while except the Labour leadership which looks like a foregone conclusion.
Funny how you fail to mention he's the most senior gay man in American politics ever. Homophobe.
Being a gay man is not a qualification for high public office. Ronnie Kray as Home Secretary in the 60s, for example. A better choice than Roy Jenkins? Not for me.
Well Germany has nothing more to be gained from the destruction the Euro has done to less productive countries so why not.
Watching the remaining EU members fight over budget contributions must be great fun if you're a brexiteer.
Maybe but it does show that the EU is not all harmony and that they are unified
Dark clouds gathering for the EU but to be positive let's hope common senses prevails, and as the EU commissioner, Paul Hogan, has confirmed, the Canada deal contains all the safeguards needed and should be the basis of agreement with the UK
You've got it all wrong I think it's great that you post here. More power to your elbow.
Hmm. That sounds like wriggling. But OK. Forgiven so long as no repeat.
Oh BTW, did you catch my (great) post the other day where I demonstrated that nobody who voted Tory on Dec 12th could justifiably hang on to their "Remainer" badge?
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
You do realise this is how it works in many countries? He is unable to pass any new laws but continues to carry out the responsibilities of being the Taoseich, particularly for state affairs until a replacement has been found. His resignation means that he has accepted that he will not attempt to form a coalition govenment, at least not as the major party.
Its a terrible electoral system used primarily on one silly continent.
It is not an electoral system. It is a protocol of handing over power after the election.
You've got it all wrong I think it's great that you post here. More power to your elbow.
Hmm. That sounds like wriggling. But OK. Forgiven so long as no repeat.
Oh BTW, did you catch my (great) post the other day where I demonstrated that nobody who voted Tory on Dec 12th could justifiably hang on to their "Remainer" badge?
You've got it all wrong I think it's great that you post here. More power to your elbow.
Hmm. That sounds like wriggling. But OK. Forgiven so long as no repeat.
Oh BTW, did you catch my (great) post the other day where I demonstrated that nobody who voted Tory on Dec 12th could justifiably hang on to their "Remainer" badge?
No missed that one but for goodness sake don't be intimidated by the people on here. Please keep posting.
Well Germany has nothing more to be gained from the destruction the Euro has done to less productive countries so why not.
Watching the remaining EU members fight over budget contributions must be great fun if you're a brexiteer.
Maybe but it does show that the EU is not all harmony and that they are unified
Dark clouds gathering for the EU but to be positive let's hope common senses prevails, and as the EU commissioner, Paul Hogan, has confirmed, the Canada deal contains all the safeguards needed and should be the basis of agreement with the UK
I wonder if a few are wondering why they didn't back the UK more often in disputes when we were in.
Comparing Corbyn's NHS policies to Bernie's M4A indicated you were ignorant of American politics. But yes, I admit, as those articles indicate, you could also espouse the same opinion because you're a shill or just plain stupid.
There's hundreds of similar articles written by a range of people; some advocating in favour, some against. Even the presence of the latter indicate to me that there's a reasonable case to be made.
But, since you don't seem disposed to be reasonable (or even civil) on this point, I shan't be engaging further on it.
Yep if you want some high-minded civil discourse to map out the contours of your bullshit in fine detail you'll have to find somebody else for that.
Well Germany has nothing more to be gained from the destruction the Euro has done to less productive countries so why not.
Watching the remaining EU members fight over budget contributions must be great fun if you're a brexiteer.
Maybe but it does show that the EU is not all harmony and that they are unified
Dark clouds gathering for the EU but to be positive let's hope common senses prevails, and as the EU commissioner, Paul Hogan, has confirmed, the Canada deal contains all the safeguards needed and should be the basis of agreement with the UK
I wonder if a few are wondering why they didn't back the UK more often in disputes when we were in.
I'm only really here for the us elections at this point. There's not much which I care about to predict in uk politics for a while except the Labour leadership which looks like a foregone conclusion.
Yes, it's Starmer. And as for WH2020, I'm going against the grain and saying that I expect Trump to lose to whoever the Dems pick. Which I do. There's a bit of heart leading head there, I admit, but I'm confident enough to be laying Trump for a fair amount. Especially now at 1.68. UK politics longer term? Will Johnson deliver economically for those neglected people in neglected places is for me the big question. Open mind but will be astonished if he does. But anyway.
And no there have been no openly gay vice presidents.
You didn't specify openly.
No one can ever specify enough to stop a lefty trying to wriggle out of their own contradictions.
So why aren't you celebrating the first openly gay man getting this position?
Performative idpol is the domain of liberal centrists, not leftism.
You never met a Corbynista?
Yeah nothing says idpol like voting for an old, rich straight white man. You're totally muddling up economic leftism with identity politics
Literally all the people criticizing the left for voting for an old rich straight white man are either idpol lefties themselves, or centrist/rightwingers being disingenuous and trying to split the idpol lefties into factionalism.
You are confusing people like me who use rhetoric to highlight inconsistencies and people who actually believe in such nonsense.
Because it is horrific to try and ban improving education.
You should be trying to tackle those who neglect education, not those who want to improve it.
No ban on anything. Read my lips. No ban. No banning going on.
It's all good, Philip. You need to trust me on this.
What would you do about Eton, Harrow and Westminster schools, that would stop them shutting down and reappearing in Singapore or Dubai - adding millions of SG$ and Dirhams of international money to those economies instead of the UK?
I'm only really here for the us elections at this point. There's not much which I care about to predict in uk politics for a while except the Labour leadership which looks like a foregone conclusion.
Yes, it's Starmer. And as for WH2020, I'm going against the grain and saying that I expect Trump to lose to whoever the Dems pick. Which I do. There's a bit of heart leading head there, I admit, but I'm confident enough to be laying Trump for a fair amount. Especially now at 1.68. UK politics longer term? Will Johnson deliver economically for those neglected people in neglected places is for me the big question. Open mind but will be astonished if he does. But anyway.
... on your way to the zen like calm of the men's urinal?
What???!!!!!
I can relate to that. At a busy show etc the womens queue is massive while the mens queue is quickly moving and complete stoic silence. Get to the urinal and its eyes up, nobody says a word, job done, go.
It makes a difference. Some restaurants I have been to in Manhattan recently had unisex loos and being forced to wait is quite a culture shock.
I also did a double take once at the wash basin afterwards when realising the person next to me was a woman.
Oh sh8t I'm in the ladies!!!
oh no of course its unisex...
That's incredibly common in the US, and has been for some time.
Interesting move from the new Scottish Tory leader. Scottish Tories in general desperately try to ignore any discussion of what their supposed brethren are doing south of the border. Which in itself suggests an elephant sized Boris problem.
But as I said yeterday, he is being naive. Allow them into Scotland to do the jobs that Scots don't want to do, and they won't do those jobs - they'll just immediately leg it down to London. Much cheaper and safer than paying a snakehead to get them over the Channel.
Not at all naive
He knows it’s not going to happen so can call for it to look fluffy and concerned
Because it is horrific to try and ban improving education.
You should be trying to tackle those who neglect education, not those who want to improve it.
No ban on anything. Read my lips. No ban. No banning going on.
It's all good, Philip. You need to trust me on this.
What would you do about Eton, Harrow and Westminster schools, that would stop them shutting down and reappearing in Singapore or Dubai - adding millions of SG$ and Dirhams of international money to those economies instead of the UK?
Except that he hasn't really gone. He's just tendered a meaningless resignation that now allows him to stay on indefinitely as Taoiseach in a caretaker role until all this is sorted out. No wonder he's smiling in that photo when he "resigned".
Not the greatest advert for the Irish electoral system.
You do realise this is how it works in many countries? He is unable to pass any new laws but continues to carry out the responsibilities of being the Taoseich, particularly for state affairs until a replacement has been found. His resignation means that he has accepted that he will not attempt to form a coalition govenment, at least not as the major party.
Its a terrible electoral system used primarily on one silly continent.
It's got nothing to do with the electoral system, same situation arose in 2010 with Brown staying on till a Govt could be formed, May also remained as PM when she lost her majority, in theory another Govt in 17 could have been formed
The silly electoral system is designed to pass power to parties that don't win their area.
Our system normally leads to a majority government but doesn't if that's how the voters vote. In 2010 of course there was a significant third party; while in 2017 we had a very clear government majority in England & Wales, even a narrow majority in Great Britain as a whole, the only reason we lacked an overall majority was because of regional parties instead of national ones in Scotland and NI.
Mr. L, quite. It turns out creating political divisions creates political divisions (it's why those advocating breaking England up into little regional assemblies are so wrong). Embedding political dividing lines because Labour thought it'd have obedient Celtic fiefdoms forever only to find themselves on the wrong side and 40 odd MPs down is the constitutional equivalent of 'not a shot fired' in Afghanistan.
Your diagnosis is completely incorrect. England desperately needs regional assemblies. They would improve accountability, and democratic experimentation.
Do you think regional government is a failure in the USA or Germany? Or any other reasonably successful larger country, except our own head-in-the-sand shithole?
The difference is the states and lander were historical entities with form and function which generated loyalty from the residents
With few exceptions (Yorkshire, Rutland, Cornwall etc) most English don’t really have an emotional attachment to their county
Two little things for Sir Keir to think about. 1) by the next general election Scotland is likely to have 52 MPs instead of the current 59 in a parliament with 600 MPs rather than 650 MPs. 2) as things stand at present, SLAB is likely to go backwards at the Holyrood election next year. They are frankly seen as irrelevant by most in what is becoming an SNP (Independence) v SCon (Unionist) battle with pockets of SLibs not unlike their situation from 1945-1987 and a handful of Greens elected from the Guardian reading politically correct brigade and student communities.
However let's see if Nicola Sturgeon survives the Alex Salmond trial. It could get very very dirty for the SNP.
I think the reduction of the number of MPs has been shelved, although new boundaries may adjust the numbers a little bit.
The law says any new boundaries need 600 MPs. Unless a new Act of Parliament is put through - and relatively quickly, it will be a case of either accepting the reduction or keeping the old boundaries. The latter would be bonkers, but I've not seen any movement either way yet.
Thank goodness we have a Prime Minister who is absolutely not bonkers and will always do what’s right, not what’s easy or popular.
MPs collectively have an interest in keeping more seats and in boundaries not radically different from their current ones. The imperative for a reduction has gone away and a new argument for a larger parliament arises post-Brexit. Plus the data used for the last review is itself getting old. Therefore I confidently expect a new review aimed at 650.
Do you think the legislation required will be a priority for this government?
Comments
You don’t have the right, for example, to advocate eugenics without that ever becoming a barrier to public service employment at the highest levels of government.
As to your specific example, we have employment tribunals to adjudicate on such matters. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that this is a real world problem in how it is managed in this country.
The Unisex sit down only version means you can get in line, mate.
There are numerous cases of assaults that have happened in areas that should have been woman only
https://www.tes.com/news/uks-privatestate-school-wealth-gap-may-be-biggest-world
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21134428/nevada-culinary-union-bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all
I can't see Sanders winning against Trump for exactly that reason: it's all very well promising shiny new Medicare-for-all, but voters will rightly be a bit sceptical of that, and therefore fearful that the end result will be neither their existing health insurance nor a quality state-provided alternative.
I think most people are wary of commenting on what is a difficult and delicate balance of rights - mainly because those who are speaking in the debate are ideologist extremists on both sides, who believe that to disagree with 1% of what they have to say means that you’re fair game to be hounded out of your job.
I believe I'm not an expert to comment on this subject, which is why I lean towards a default opinion that medical experts should be the ones who get involved.
Eminently qualified. He ended the Troubles. He knows all of the songs.
Well, one side's songs anyway.
https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/1230590980501516288
This is why a second term would be far more damaging than the first.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1230844216206614528?s=20
The first is an example of inappropriate criteria being used in assessing foster parent suitability. It is about misuse of public powers, though there was concern that their views might have an impact on the Eastern European children that were to be placed with them. When placing children for fostering, the focus is on the interests of the children. It is easy to see how some views might disbar a couple from being appropriate foster parents for specific children.
I guess I'd assumed it wasn't as statistically significant as that, but it seems like a bigger thing.
I suspect also that 5-10 more years of Boris will make defending the union a tougher sell.
Yes, 1979 is fading from memory. However, if the SNP does contrive to force a GE by actively voting with the Tories to prevent the formation of a minority Labour government, a scenario which I see as realistic*, then my point is that those memories will be rapidly revived. Actively bringing down a Labour government is very different to the false parallel you try and draw the electoral impact of the vote to bring a premature end to the last Tory government in 2019.
* You can always deny that the SNP would do that if you disagree.
I also did a double take once at the wash basin afterwards when realising the person next to me was a woman.
Oh sh8t I'm in the ladies!!!
oh no of course its unisex...
Since the Democrats seem determined to gift him it, I'm looking for crumbs of comfort.
Anyway, it seems I was trying to draw an unhelpful distinction between an ethnic trait, and the above process which is simply an accident of history. As below, I am happy to stand corrected that the latter can also be used negatively.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1230765329975918594?s=21
But, since you don't seem disposed to be reasonable (or even civil) on this point, I shan't be engaging further on it.
It’s not a history of which to be proud, is it.
And no there have been no openly gay vice presidents.
Ironically Labour is the most nostalgic British party, every wing of it in fact (possibly because the present is so hard to take, and as for the future..). Fantasising about a rerun of 1979 for the SNP seems preferable to working out why SLab is a 4th place irrelevance in Scotland.
So why aren't you celebrating the first openly gay man getting this position?
Buchanan had a close and intimate relationship with William Rufus King, an Alabama politician who briefly served as vice president under Franklin Pierce. Buchanan and King lived together in a Washington boardinghouse, from 1834 until King's departure for France in 1844. Though such a practice was then common, King also referred to the relationship as a "communion," and the two attended social functions together. Contemporaries also noted the closeness. Andrew Jackson called King "Miss Nancy" and prominent Democrat Aaron V. Brown referred to King as Buchanan's "better half," "wife" and "Aunt Fancy" (the last being a 19th-century euphemism for an effeminate man).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan
#scalesfromeyes
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
https://twitter.com/meljomur/status/1230846853220110336?s=20
Dark clouds gathering for the EU but to be positive let's hope common senses prevails, and as the EU commissioner, Paul Hogan, has confirmed, the Canada deal contains all the safeguards needed and should be the basis of agreement with the UK
Oh BTW, did you catch my (great) post the other day where I demonstrated that nobody who voted Tory on Dec 12th could justifiably hang on to their "Remainer" badge?
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/status/1230853870064107520?s=20
You are confusing people like me who use rhetoric to highlight inconsistencies and people who actually believe in such nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-51585283
He knows it’s not going to happen so can call for it to look fluffy and concerned
Our system normally leads to a majority government but doesn't if that's how the voters vote. In 2010 of course there was a significant third party; while in 2017 we had a very clear government majority in England & Wales, even a narrow majority in Great Britain as a whole, the only reason we lacked an overall majority was because of regional parties instead of national ones in Scotland and NI.
With few exceptions (Yorkshire, Rutland, Cornwall etc) most English don’t really have an emotional attachment to their county