Not noted for his denialism. I think 8 March is acceptable as by then hospital admissions should have reached acceptable levels. But no further.
Maybe he's come to the conclusion that young people have already sacrificed far too much at the altar of further prolonging the lives of the longest lived generation ever.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Take part in the forthcoming World economic boom instead.
I like the sound of your parallel universe. Can I challenge you to a unicorn race?
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
I wouldn't particularly focus on Starmer's cabinet, which, as is, has vastly more talent in it than Johnson's. I get the impression the star of the "exception that proves the incompetence rule", ie Sunak, is on the wane. Incidentally Sunak is ahead of Starmer in the next PM stakes. A lay, I think.
A propopos. A remarkable 4% of people in Northern Ireland think Brandon "No Sea Border" Lewis is doing a somewhat good job in the Province. A contrast with his capable predecessor Julian Smith, who was sacked from Johnson's cabinet on grounds of competence.
It's almost as if Boris is doing everything possible to get Northern Ireland to join the Republic.
He probably isn't, but it would make his life easier if it happened, of course.
I rather hope he is. We live in a different era from Catholic theocracy and Ian Paisley's crew. A single Ireland with a tolerant liberal approach makes perfect sense.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
A World economic depression means the Tories won't get the blame.
On the economy, they just need to outmanoeuvre a Labour Party that will still be spending money it can't afford.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
Though the article does make some significant points about the dress code of the NZ parliament. It is rather archaic.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!
Anyway, the correct weapon to use to destroy the tie is not that it's "a symbol of outdated white male supremacy." It's the fact that women aren't forced to wear them, and rules enforcing them are therefore sexist.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
How many men become pregnant?
What does that have to do with anything?
Answer the question, please!
No, because it's not relevant. I don't care whether it says "woman" or "person", I just think people getting angry about the fact it says "person" is pathetic.
It's simple grievance seeking. The exact thing conservatives whinge and whine about "woke"-ists doing all the time.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
How many men become pregnant?
What does that have to do with anything?
Answer the question, please!
No, because it's not relevant. I don't care whether it says "woman" or "person", I just think people getting angry about the fact it says "person" is pathetic.
It's simple grievance seeking. The exact thing conservatives whinge and whine about "woke"-ists doing all the time.
Have you found out how many men become pregnant yet?
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
How many men become pregnant?
What does that have to do with anything?
Answer the question, please!
No, because it's not relevant. I don't care whether it says "woman" or "person", I just think people getting angry about the fact it says "person" is pathetic.
It's simple grievance seeking. The exact thing conservatives whinge and whine about "woke"-ists doing all the time.
Have you found out how many men become pregnant yet?
Where's the foetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
A World economic depression means the Tories won't get the blame.
That line of attack having proved so fruitful for Labour in 2010?
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
I can't see any benefit to Labour, aside from "just" getting the keys to a tentative stay in No 10 of doing any deal with the SNP. In any event its counter-intuitive - SNP gain independence he loses their MP's support anyway (forcing things through Parliament using Scottish MP's who'll be off is just suicide), and if he wins any Indy ref the SNP will enter such a sulk they'll probably withdraw support to force another GE anyway. Where's the win?
That's where the utter awfulness of BoJo and his government might help Starmer a bit.
He offers: Devomax with a haggis on top English regions (if they want to fuse into a single English Parliament, that's up to them, I'm not a dictator... bet they won't) Referendum in 2028 ("so we can give the new arrangements a fair run") And if it's not me, it'll be Johnson again.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
A World economic depression means the Tories won't get the blame.
On the economy, they just need to outmanoeuvre a Labour Party that will still be spending money it can't afford.
I think your analysis is incorrect for both paragraphs.
Paragraph 2 is also irony volume turned to 11. Hats off to the most fiscally Marxist UK Government in history.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
A World economic depression means the Tories won't get the blame.
That line of attack having proved so fruitful for a Labour in 2010?
Yes it was.
The problem in 2010 is what Labour had done themselves, not the world.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
You are doing it again. Yes there is a lack of evidence around the AZ vaccine against the sa variant. BUT others have been shown to still work, but with a slightly reduced efficacy. It’s possible AZ will need updating, or we will need to pivot to the others in the coming months. But the lockdown is suppressing both the most common variant, and the Kent version and the sa version right now. If we get cases low enough, plus vaccines high enough we will open up, we will be able to test, track and trace on a few hundred cases per day. Try to stay calm. You remind me of another poster way back, Adric or something.
Even AZ was shown to induce a T-Cell reaction against the SA variant. Also it does seem that SA in and of itself is doing pretty well in suppressing cases at the moment.
I admit that I sometimes try to inject a few good news stories only to balance out Leon. Unlike Leon I am not a professional thriller writer artisanal sex toy flintnapper so I don’t have his flare for the dramatic but if everything is going to hell in a hand basket what the f*ck’s the point worrying about it? There is marginally less point than in purveying false hope - as I perhaps do. There’s no Betfair Market on Armageddon. The Black Death lasted seven years but helped trigger the Renaissance. The 1918-20 flu pandemic preceded the Roaring 20s. Equally this pandemic may trigger societal collapse. Who knows?
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Careful.
You'll be cancelled.
Writers of parliamentary bills, like lawyers generally, have a strong sense of avoiding trouble if at all possible, unless of course they are being paid to make trouble. In the modern world, absurdly, it is perfectly possible for someone to make the claim that that (a) they have given birth and (b) they are a man. Some will hear that claim with approval. Some not. The use of the word 'person' simply, and without either taking sides or hostages, leaves the question on one side and avoids future litigation. It's what (some) lawyers do. Good for them. Don't blame blameless parliamentary draughtspersons (see) because they don't leave footholds for wokerists to grab hold of and drone on about.
Of course the issue of whether say a parrot, dolphin or octopus can count as a person hasn't been eliminated by the drafting but there aren't any (many?) in parliament so it can wait.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Take part in the forthcoming World economic boom instead.
I like the sound of your parallel universe. Can I challenge you to a unicorn race?
Much of the world followed the Spanish Flu with the Roaring Twenties. No unicorns required.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Careful.
You'll be cancelled.
Writers of parliamentary bills, like lawyers generally, have a strong sense of avoiding trouble if at all possible. In the modern world, absurdly, it is perfectly possible for someone to make the claim that that (a) they have given birth and (b) they are a man. Some will hear that claim with approval. Some not. The use of the word 'person' simply, and without either taking sides or hostages, leaves the question on one side and avoids future litigation. It's what (some) lawyers do. Good for them. Don't blame blameless parliamentary draughtspersons (see) because they don't leave footholds for wokerists to grab hold of and drone on about.
It isn't the wokeists droning on here. It's the anti-wokists who are equally as much whiney snowflakes.
Can I say I sympathise with those impatient for their vaccine jab. Up until recently I have been laid back about when I get mine. Didn't even mind if the priority changed and put me further down the list giving priority to teachers, police etc.
However now I am having to make a few hospital visits (now waiting for my MRI scan results) and if I am unlucky I might be making a lot more so I am keen to be vaccinated. But even that wouldn't be of concern if I was still some way down the list of getting my vaccine. But I am 66 and in the last few days all the 65 and 66 year olds I know (quite a few) have all had their invites. I have heard nothing and I'm now getting exceptionally keen to get it and a few days immunity build up before my next hospital visit.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
I can't see any benefit to Labour, aside from "just" getting the keys to a tentative stay in No 10 of doing any deal with the SNP. In any event its counter-intuitive - SNP gain independence he loses their MP's support anyway (forcing things through Parliament using Scottish MP's who'll be off is just suicide), and if he wins any Indy ref the SNP will enter such a sulk they'll probably withdraw support to force another GE anyway. Where's the win?
That's where the utter awfulness of BoJo and his government might help Starmer a bit.
He offers: Devomax with a haggis on top English regions (if they want to fuse into a single English Parliament, that's up to them, I'm not a dictator... bet they won't) Referendum in 2028 ("so we can give the new arrangements a fair run") And if it's not me, it'll be Johnson again.
In that case, what's a girl to do?
When faced with the choice of Starmer sidling up to Jimmy Krankie with the SNP calling the shots (very much like the DUP did with May), and BJ, the majority of English voters would probably opt for the latter.
And SKS hardly has great form in discussing referenda, or managing or interpreting their results.....
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Rep lawyer now suggesting the entire purpose of the trial is because the Dems are scared of facing Trump in an election again.
And now that the ‘successful transfer of power’ to Biden proves that the system works and isn’t broken.
Guardian: Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, spent several minutes explaining how senators are different than other Americans. It was very unclear how that issue relates to whether the impeachment trial is constitutional.
The contrast to House impeachment managers’ presentation, which started with a video showing the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection, was quite stark.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
I can't see any benefit to Labour, aside from "just" getting the keys to a tentative stay in No 10 of doing any deal with the SNP. In any event its counter-intuitive - SNP gain independence he loses their MP's support anyway (forcing things through Parliament using Scottish MP's who'll be off is just suicide), and if he wins any Indy ref the SNP will enter such a sulk they'll probably withdraw support to force another GE anyway. Where's the win?
That's where the utter awfulness of BoJo and his government might help Starmer a bit.
He offers: Devomax with a haggis on top English regions (if they want to fuse into a single English Parliament, that's up to them, I'm not a dictator... bet they won't) Referendum in 2028 ("so we can give the new arrangements a fair run") And if it's not me, it'll be Johnson again.
In that case, what's a girl to do?
When faced with the choice of Starmer sidling up to Jimmy Krankie with the SNP calling the shots (very much like the DUP did with May), and BJ, the majority of English voters would probably opt for the latter.
And SKS hardly has great form in discussing referenda, or managing or interpreting their results.....
True but SKS could still win a majority across the UK with the support of Scottish SNP MPs and Welsh Labour MPs even if England again elects a majority of Tory MPs albeit by a smaller margin than in 2019
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Though the article does make some significant points about the dress code of the NZ parliament. It is rather archaic.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!
Anyway, the correct weapon to use to destroy the tie is not that it's "a symbol of outdated white male supremacy." It's the fact that women aren't forced to wear them, and rules enforcing them are therefore sexist.
Ties are annoying and pointless.
Well, personally, the point of a tie is to hide the increasing gaps between the shirt buttons.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
"Simply identifying as a man" isn't the law.
So? What is your point?
The simple question is: Is a woman a person? If so, there's nothing wrong with the law.
What possible rational justification is there for getting annoyed by this?
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
No, it is you arguing with yourself! In your own words:
"Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter."
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
No, it is you arguing with yourself! In your own words:
"Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter."
So if it says "woman" it shouldn't matter!
I've already said that if it says "woman" it doesn't matter.
But it doesn't say "woman". It says "person".
And people are frothing like no tomorrow about it.
We think the UK has handled this crisis badly....the often mis-attributed quote about the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Take part in the forthcoming World economic boom instead.
I like the sound of your parallel universe. Can I challenge you to a unicorn race?
Much of the world followed the Spanish Flu with the Roaring Twenties. No unicorns required.
I foresee a very short-lived boom.
Once we have blown our furlough money at Sytner BMW and Mays Travel, we will remember we have been made redundant and the mortgage payment is due.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Unless he wins back Labour's Scottish seats he certainly likely will need SNP support to become PM
I can't see any benefit to Labour, aside from "just" getting the keys to a tentative stay in No 10 of doing any deal with the SNP. In any event its counter-intuitive - SNP gain independence he loses their MP's support anyway (forcing things through Parliament using Scottish MP's who'll be off is just suicide), and if he wins any Indy ref the SNP will enter such a sulk they'll probably withdraw support to force another GE anyway. Where's the win?
That's where the utter awfulness of BoJo and his government might help Starmer a bit.
He offers: Devomax with a haggis on top English regions (if they want to fuse into a single English Parliament, that's up to them, I'm not a dictator... bet they won't) Referendum in 2028 ("so we can give the new arrangements a fair run") And if it's not me, it'll be Johnson again.
In that case, what's a girl to do?
When faced with the choice of Starmer sidling up to Jimmy Krankie with the SNP calling the shots (very much like the DUP did with May), and BJ, the majority of English voters would probably opt for the latter.
And SKS hardly has great form in discussing referenda, or managing or interpreting their results.....
True but SKS could still win a majority across the UK with the support of Scottish SNP MPs and Welsh Labour MPs even if England again elects a majority of Tory MPs albeit by a smaller margin than in 2019
Well it's the SNP which is the issue isn't it. And the price for SNP support won't be limited to a referendum (or people's vote - I forget what they're called these days). Like the DUP the SNP are fierce political operators and it wouldn't take long at all for English voters, indeed English Labour MP's to become mightily brassed-off with the SNP's particular brand of guerrilla politics. Especially if the future smaller financial pie we're going to have to share is, how shall we say it, disproportionally allocated.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
"Simply identifying as a man" isn't the law.
So? What is your point?
The simple question is: Is a woman a person? If so, there's nothing wrong with the law.
What possible rational justification is there for getting annoyed by this?
it's just pathetic.
As I said I'm not annoyed and don't care.
It should be the same language as the regular law for maternity leave, just a copy and pasta of that. If that says person then who cares? If that says women then who cares?
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Of course a woman is a person; but for the purposes of biological reproduction a person is not a woman. The terms cannot be used interchangeably because they don't mean the same thing.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
"Simply identifying as a man" isn't the law.
So? What is your point?
The simple question is: Is a woman a person? If so, there's nothing wrong with the law.
What possible rational justification is there for getting annoyed by this?
it's just pathetic.
As I said I'm not annoyed and don't care.
It should be the same language as the regular law for maternity leave, just a copy and pasta of that. If that says person then who cares? If that says women then who cares?
I disagree. I think "person" is entirely justifiable regardless of what the law for maternity leave says. It's inclusive and reflects modern trends to remove gendered words from law.
A woman is a person. That statement is not controversial.
But if it had said "woman" I wouldn't have cared either. But the snowflake right care. They're always on the lookout for things that offend their delicate souls.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
Not noted for his denialism. I think 8 March is acceptable as by then hospital admissions should have reached acceptable levels. But no further.
Maybe he's come to the conclusion that young people have already sacrificed far too much at the altar of further prolonging the lives of the longest lived generation ever.
Its a conclusion I came to long ago.
I don't know how old you are, but if you are over 25 and are not very very keen to avoid getting this disease you are frankly very reckless or very stupid.
You may also have bought in to the misconception that covid is special in preferentially killing the very old. In fact flu, cancer, cvd, pneumonia and lots of other diseases kill people with almost exactly the same age distribution as covid.
So your claim that this is about further prolonging the lives of the very old is simply nonsense. If the disease had a magic cut off point such that you were automatically immune to it from your 70th birthday onwards, things would be pretty much indistinguishable from how they actually are.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Not just that, what must 99% of gender dysphoric/ambivalent people think? I am pretty certain they just want to get on with their lives and are victims of the tendency of the left to select quite arbitrarily populations (like the Palestinians) to be wankers about.
Quite. And it is so egregious, absurd and insultingly pointless that it probably creates resentment against trans people, so it has the opposite effect to that intended. Brilliant.
I (occasionally) get pulled up by Woke people at work for saying "strawman" rather than "strawperson" when referring to a test argument or proposal.
I've started to push back on it, by pointing out what irrelevant and counterproductive horseshit that really is.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Of course a woman is a person; but for the purposes of biological reproduction a person is not a woman. The terms cannot be used interchangeably because they don't mean the same thing.
For someone so highly educated this has no logical basis to it whatsoever.
A woman is a person.
For the purpose of this law, it doesn't matter on your definition of "man" or "woman" because it's talking solely about people who can give birth, regardless of whether you call these people "women". It doesn't apply to people who don't give birth
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
I also think that article on breasts is ridiculous.
It screams of someone trying to be "overly PC" when it was not called for.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, with the NHS absolutely at breaking point...and somebody decided this was essential use of time....
On the other hand, I have young friends who tell me that their generation is beginning to rebel against the extremes of Woke Madness, especially the insanity surrounding trans issues (as here)
Let us hope that is true. All pendulums swing and all fashions end, usually at the extreme point (like huge flared trousers suddenly becoming ludicrous and everyone went to drainpipes). CHESTFEEDING. Jesus.
Yes, I think that's true. Some of it just requires a little pushback from the Government. Drawing a line. That's all.
You know the statue pulling? Well, that's stopped in the last couple of weeks.
Jenrick was derided by the usual loons but Exeter Council is now keeping Redvers Buller, the Rhodes Commission is going to have to compromise too (they wanted to pull him down) and Sadiq Khan is now looking to add diversity to the public space, rather than purge it.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Not just that, what must 99% of gender dysphoric/ambivalent people think? I am pretty certain they just want to get on with their lives and are victims of the tendency of the left to select quite arbitrarily populations (like the Palestinians) to be wankers about.
Quite. And it is so egregious, absurd and insultingly pointless that it probably creates resentment against trans people, so it has the opposite effect to that intended. Brilliant.
I (occasionally) get pulled up by Woke people at work for saying "strawman" rather than "strawperson" when referring to a test argument or proposal.
I've started to push back on it, by pointing out what irrelevant and counterproductive horseshit that really is.
I self-identify as a horse on a thursday afternoon. I resent and am offended by the implication that my excrement is an analogy for things or arguments which are undesirable or lacking in verifiable fact.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
Jesus.
"Chestfeeding"
I hoped the virus might at least have killed this madness, along with 115,000 Britons, but no. It is maybe getting worse. Hopefully it is the terminal stage of the fever, after which recovery
I find this shit insulting. What must women think? The word "breast" is banned. THAT IS WHAT IT IS
Not just that, what must 99% of gender dysphoric/ambivalent people think? I am pretty certain they just want to get on with their lives and are victims of the tendency of the left to select quite arbitrarily populations (like the Palestinians) to be wankers about.
Quite. And it is so egregious, absurd and insultingly pointless that it probably creates resentment against trans people, so it has the opposite effect to that intended. Brilliant.
I (occasionally) get pulled up by Woke people at work for saying "strawman" rather than "strawperson" when referring to a test argument or proposal.
I've started to push back on it, by pointing out what irrelevant and counterproductive horseshit that really is.
I self-identify as a horse on a thursday afternoon. I resent and am offended by the implication that my excrement is an analogy for things or arguments which are undesirable or lacking in verifiable fact.
This is the equalivent of "you can't even say baa baa black sheep anymore without being called racist hurr hurr"
It's like, calm down grandad. Of course you can say baa blaa black sheep just like you can say horseshit, strawman, and breastmilk.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
Could you find a policy mix that appeals both the red wall seats and cities like Sadiq Khan's London??
If not impossible, its the next best thing.
I think that in three and a half years time, the only question will be "how sick is the country of the Tory Party?". Will it be 1992 (or possibly lose popular vote but hang on) or will it be 1997?
My bet is that they can´t fool all of the people all of the time, and that the next year will be a total car crash, so more 1997 than 1992.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
Because it's a right-on phrase by people desperate to show how right-on they are.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I find the narcissism and neediness utterly pathetic, and they earn nothing from me but contempt.
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
Because it's a right-on phrase by people desperate to show how right-on they are.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I find the narcissism and neediness utterly pathetic, and they earn nothing from me but contempt.
Are you sure these people are not just winding you up because it's so easy?
Can I say I sympathise with those impatient for their vaccine jab. Up until recently I have been laid back about when I get mine. Didn't even mind if the priority changed and put me further down the list giving priority to teachers, police etc.
However now I am having to make a few hospital visits (now waiting for my MRI scan results) and if I am unlucky I might be making a lot more so I am keen to be vaccinated. But even that wouldn't be of concern if I was still some way down the list of getting my vaccine. But I am 66 and in the last few days all the 65 and 66 year olds I know (quite a few) have all had their invites. I have heard nothing and I'm now getting exceptionally keen to get it and a few days immunity build up before my next hospital visit.
You may be entitled to phone your GP and register for a jab due to clinical vulnerability.
Though the article does make some significant points about the dress code of the NZ parliament. It is rather archaic.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!
Anyway, the correct weapon to use to destroy the tie is not that it's "a symbol of outdated white male supremacy." It's the fact that women aren't forced to wear them, and rules enforcing them are therefore sexist.
Ties are annoying and pointless.
Until a year ago, when we started to dress in scrubs for work, I would always wear a tie. A suit without a tie is just wrong and slovenly.
I like dressing well. Women really appreciate it, as nearly all women make an effort, but most British men dress like slobs. It really is quite disrespectful to dress so badly.
I actually disagree with OGH here. Moreover, I'm a layer of Starmer as next PM at current prices.
Labour's problems go far deeper than Corbyn, and being "Not Corbyn" is an insufficient answer to them for the reasons I explored on Sunday.
Corbyn was a symptom as well as a cause; a denial of the reasons Labour won office, and then lost it, in the first place. The bigger problem is the deeply-tarnished Labour brand, what it stands for, what it's learnt, and what it will do in office. Corbyn just made it much worse, and added some fantastical delusions into the mix as well.
Starmer is personally likeable and has drawn-level with Johnson as "Best PM" in the past; the trouble is that he's been shrinking in those leads and there's a huge pool of undecideds on him, now, that are starting to firm up.
He won't be Corbyn Mark II, but he could easily become Miliband Mark II.
Starmer's mountain is far too high to climb in one go. We're talking overturning an 80 seat majority with a majority of his own. He has a battle on multiple fronts to win back the red-wall whilst also winning the Swindon Norths and Nuneaton's (now with huge Con majorites) whilst simultaneously hanging on to his metropolitan seats. He's no Blair. That is evident - a little too stained with Corbyn dog-dirt, with little or no young pizazz that Blair effortlessly showed.
A hung parliament with SNP support is his worst nightmare for a myriad of reasons, and one which would lead to another election very quickly.
Labour would be best aiming at two pushes. And by the second Labour may have worked out who will need to lead them.
Maybe but Heath overturned a Labour majority of 100 in 1970 to a conservative majority of 30.
Hmmm.
In 1966 the Tories were 110 seats behind Labour.
In 2019 Labour were 163 seats behind the Tories.
The rise of a substantial third party (in 1966 the third party were the Liberals with twelve seats) means the electoral dynamic is less favourable to the second placed party even if the headline majority is smaller.
Or to put it another way - if Labour match the 77 seats Heath gained, or even the 96 (notional) Cameron gained, they will still be not merely short of an overall majority but actually not quite hit 300. They would barely squeak over it with the 108 gains Cameron actually made.
Even if they secure a reversal on the scale of 1997, 145 seats gained only gets them a majority of around 40.
And that’s before any boundary changes, particularly in Wales.
Starmer faces a major challenge. Not an impossible one, but a tough one.
A Labour majority without Scotland is a very tall order.
How do you anticipate the Tories will outmanoeuvre the forthcoming World economic depression? I know Johnson's genius knows no bounds, but I just can't see how he beats this issue.
Take part in the forthcoming World economic boom instead.
I like the sound of your parallel universe. Can I challenge you to a unicorn race?
Much of the world followed the Spanish Flu with the Roaring Twenties. No unicorns required.
I foresee a very short-lived boom.
Once we have blown our furlough money at Sytner BMW and Mays Travel, we will remember we have been made redundant and the mortgage payment is due.
Who's "we?" Not nearly everyone has been made redundant or stands to be imminently.
A large chunk of the population will get through this episode in perfectly good financial shape, and many of those will be sitting on more disposable cash than they've ever had in their lives. There's only so much food and so many pieces of random tat off Amazon that one is likely to wish to buy.
Inequality will probably get substantially worse, but I think it unlikely that all the people who are sitting on piles of cash will, once the nightmare ends, go to the local restaurant once or twice and then revert to sitting at home watching Netflix for the rest of their lives.
*IF* we manage to get out of this lockdown and not fall back into repeated cycles of new ones, then consumerism will be right back in fashion, and is likely to be so for some time.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Of course a woman is a person; but for the purposes of biological reproduction a person is not a woman. The terms cannot be used interchangeably because they don't mean the same thing.
For someone so highly educated this has no logical basis to it whatsoever.
A woman is a person.
For the purpose of this law, it doesn't matter on your definition of "man" or "woman" because it's talking solely about people who can give birth, regardless of whether you call these people "women". It doesn't apply to people who don't give birth
Therefore "person" is fine.
Stop looking for grievances when there is none.
I can assure you that very little education is needed on this matter, only common sense. The correct term for the specific type of adult human being - or person, if you will - who can give birth is 'woman'. Hence it should be used in legislation.
Though the article does make some significant points about the dress code of the NZ parliament. It is rather archaic.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!
Anyway, the correct weapon to use to destroy the tie is not that it's "a symbol of outdated white male supremacy." It's the fact that women aren't forced to wear them, and rules enforcing them are therefore sexist.
Ties are annoying and pointless.
Until a year ago, when we started to dress in scrubs for work, I would always wear a tie. A suit without a tie is just wrong and slovenly.
I like dressing well. Women really appreciate it, as nearly all women make an effort, but most British men dress like slobs. It really is quite disrespectful to dress so badly.
There exists a whole universe of exciting gents fashion options between traditional Western suit and tie, and a tracksuit.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
Of course a woman is a person; but for the purposes of biological reproduction a person is not a woman. The terms cannot be used interchangeably because they don't mean the same thing.
For someone so highly educated this has no logical basis to it whatsoever.
A woman is a person.
For the purpose of this law, it doesn't matter on your definition of "man" or "woman" because it's talking solely about people who can give birth, regardless of whether you call these people "women". It doesn't apply to people who don't give birth
Therefore "person" is fine.
Stop looking for grievances when there is none.
I can assure you that very little education is needed on this matter, only common sense. The correct term for the specific type of adult human being - or person, if you will - who can give birth is 'woman'. Hence it should be used in legislation.
You're still looking for grievances where there are none. Get a grip.
You call people who give birth "women". Fine. That's your prerogative. However "people who give birth" is still fine.
Though the article does make some significant points about the dress code of the NZ parliament. It is rather archaic.
When I worked in NZ the hospital dress code permitted shorts, but only with long socks. Very 1950's!
Anyway, the correct weapon to use to destroy the tie is not that it's "a symbol of outdated white male supremacy." It's the fact that women aren't forced to wear them, and rules enforcing them are therefore sexist.
Ties are annoying and pointless.
Until a year ago, when we started to dress in scrubs for work, I would always wear a tie. A suit without a tie is just wrong and slovenly.
I like dressing well. Women really appreciate it, as nearly all women make an effort, but most British men dress like slobs. It really is quite disrespectful to dress so badly.
There exists a whole universe of exciting gents fashion options between traditional Western suit and tie, and a tracksuit.
Certainly so, in which case why dress like a slob? As most British males do.
Not noted for his denialism. I think 8 March is acceptable as by then hospital admissions should have reached acceptable levels. But no further.
Actually he kind of is. His quotes throughout autumn constantly downplayed (and underpredicted) the second wave. I made a little compilation of some of his public comments a while ago. I certainly don't regard him as sound, after that.
I think March 8 for schools, at least primary, is sensible. We then need 2-3 weeks to evaluate what that does to spread, and build stronger evidence for vaccination effect. I hope the government can hold out against pressure to act prematurely.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
CHESTFEEDING
Breastfeeding is also inclusive so "chestfeeding" is stupid.
This is just ridiculous. People don't get pregnant. Women do, fucking sort it out.
Get a grip FFS. A woman is a person. It works.
I think it's the deliberate and pointed avoidance of using the word "woman" and the resulting implication that using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant which is the issue.
There is nothing wrong with using the word "person" to describe a woman who is pregnant. Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Then why not just say woman? What other type of person would be pregnant?
Perhaps a biological woman who now identifies as a man? They still can get pregnant.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
I'm going to assume that anyone who is having a baby hasn't had any ops to become a man.
You don't need an operation to identify as a man. You can simply identify as a man.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
Getting into a froth about biological and reproductive reality is just pathetic!
You're arguing with yourself. I said someone born a woman doesn't need an operation to identify as a man. That's factually accurate because they simply can identify as a man, regardless of whether you approve or not.
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
"Simply identifying as a man" isn't the law.
So? What is your point?
The simple question is: Is a woman a person? If so, there's nothing wrong with the law.
What possible rational justification is there for getting annoyed by this?
it's just pathetic.
Well, you seem remarkably exercised by an argument which you regard as trivial and "just pathetic". This is about your thirtieth (repetitive) contribution to the debate. So clearly it does matter to you, quite a lot. Why?
Midwives have been told to say “chestfeeding” instead of “breastfeeding” and to replace the term “mother” with “mother or birthing parent” as part of moves to be more trans-friendly.
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust is the first in the country to formally implement a gender inclusive language policy for its maternity services department, which will now be known as “perinatal services”.
Staff have been instructed that “breastmilk” should be replaced with the phrases “human milk”, “breast/chestmilk” or “milk from the feeding mother or parent”.
The kind of shit that makes me reconsider leaving the Tory party. As I said a few days ago, it makes me a reluctant Tory voter instead of sitting on my hands. I'm sure I'm not alone either.
My wife just seems bemused that a medical organisation is trying hard to ignore biological facts.
I'm baffled as to where "human milk" comes from aside from a breast.
I'm also bothered as to how it can be a trans issue. Men and women both have breasts, how is humanmilk more PC than breastmilk?
They could call it "homo-milk". As in milk from homo sapiens.
But milk comes from female animals, in nature, so maybe "milk" is sexist, or transphobic?
Possibly the most remarkable erasure of women since Sanskrit decided that the dual pitarau ('pair of fathers') was an adequate form to mean both father and mother.
I literally can't wrap my head around some people taking this as being an "erasure of women". It's completely pathetic.
A person can be a man or a woman. It is inclusive by nature and erases nothing.
I also heavily dislike the historic convention of writing "he" to mean "he" or "she" in law. Thankfully that appears to be changing.
Yes a person can be a man or a woman but how many fucking men can give birth? clearly 0. How many men can breast feed even if they have become "women" clearly 0. Take your woke and shove it up your arse
Comments
Its a conclusion I came to long ago.
On the economy, they just need to outmanoeuvre a Labour Party that will still be spending money it can't afford.
India 1.8
England 3.85
Draw 5.3
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/cricket/test-matches/india-v-england-betting-30278279
Just like there is nothing wrong with using the word "woman" to describe a woman who is pregnant.
Getting in a froth about either is pathetic.
Ties are annoying and pointless.
It's simple grievance seeking. The exact thing conservatives whinge and whine about "woke"-ists doing all the time.
I see no reason for the language to differ.
But it doesn't matter. There is a move to use gender neutral words in law, something I agree with wholeheartedly, and it applies to both male words and female words equally.
He offers:
Devomax with a haggis on top
English regions (if they want to fuse into a single English Parliament, that's up to them, I'm not a dictator... bet they won't)
Referendum in 2028 ("so we can give the new arrangements a fair run")
And if it's not me, it'll be Johnson again.
In that case, what's a girl to do?
Paragraph 2 is also irony volume turned to 11. Hats off to the most fiscally Marxist UK Government in history.
The problem in 2010 is what Labour had done themselves, not the world.
But we don't have to turn this into a trans debate, because it doesn't matter. The whole thing is pathetic.
Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter.
This is just grievance seeking from the right, the same people who constantly whinge about the left grievance seeking.
The hypocrisy is immense.
I admit that I sometimes try to inject a few good news stories only to balance out Leon. Unlike Leon I am not a
professional thriller writerartisanal sex toy flintnapper so I don’t have his flare for the dramatic but if everything is going to hell in a hand basket what the f*ck’s the point worrying about it? There is marginally less point than in purveying false hope - as I perhaps do. There’s no Betfair Market on Armageddon. The Black Death lasted seven years but helped trigger the Renaissance. The 1918-20 flu pandemic preceded the Roaring 20s. Equally this pandemic may trigger societal collapse. Who knows?Of course the issue of whether say a parrot, dolphin or octopus can count as a person hasn't been eliminated by the drafting but there aren't any (many?) in parliament so it can wait.
However now I am having to make a few hospital visits (now waiting for my MRI scan results) and if I am unlucky I might be making a lot more so I am keen to be vaccinated. But even that wouldn't be of concern if I was still some way down the list of getting my vaccine. But I am 66 and in the last few days all the 65 and 66 year olds I know (quite a few) have all had their invites. I have heard nothing and I'm now getting exceptionally keen to get it and a few days immunity build up before my next hospital visit.
And SKS hardly has great form in discussing referenda, or managing or interpreting their results.....
We're not debating bathrooms or anything like that. We're debating whiney snowflakes getting themselves in a tiff over whether a woman is a person or not.
And now that the ‘successful transfer of power’ to Biden proves that the system works and isn’t broken.
Guardian: Castor, who is leading Donald Trump’s defense team, spent several minutes explaining how senators are different than other Americans. It was very unclear how that issue relates to whether the impeachment trial is constitutional.
The contrast to House impeachment managers’ presentation, which started with a video showing the violence and destruction of the January 6 insurrection, was quite stark.
The simple question is: Is a woman a person? If so, there's nothing wrong with the law.
What possible rational justification is there for getting annoyed by this?
it's just pathetic.
"Like I said, if it said "woman", it doesn't matter, if it says "person", it also doesn't matter."
So if it says "woman" it shouldn't matter!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9241895/Moment-gym-raided-police-Liverpool-breaching-Covid-rules-refusing-close.html
But it doesn't say "woman". It says "person".
And people are frothing like no tomorrow about it.
Pissing ski-resorts...again...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9241557/EUs-South-Africa-Covid-variant-hotspot-goes-lockdown.html
Once we have blown our furlough money at Sytner BMW and Mays Travel, we will remember we have been made redundant and the mortgage payment is due.
It should be the same language as the regular law for maternity leave, just a copy and pasta of that. If that says person then who cares? If that says women then who cares?
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/feb/09/jimmy-anderson-over-of-reverse-swing-sorcery-england-india-first-test-cricket
A woman is a person. That statement is not controversial.
But if it had said "woman" I wouldn't have cared either. But the snowflake right care. They're always on the lookout for things that offend their delicate souls.
I can safely say that Sid the Sexist did not say "Chest oot for the lads!".
You may also have bought in to the misconception that covid is special in preferentially killing the very old. In fact flu, cancer, cvd, pneumonia and lots of other diseases kill people with almost exactly the same age distribution as covid.
So your claim that this is about further prolonging the lives of the very old is simply nonsense. If the disease had a magic cut off point such that you were automatically immune to it from your 70th birthday onwards, things would be pretty much indistinguishable from how they actually are.
I've started to push back on it, by pointing out what irrelevant and counterproductive horseshit that really is.
Wendover - The Electric Vehicle Charging Problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLcqJ2DclEg
A woman is a person.
For the purpose of this law, it doesn't matter on your definition of "man" or "woman" because it's talking solely about people who can give birth, regardless of whether you call these people "women". It doesn't apply to people who don't give birth
Therefore "person" is fine.
Stop looking for grievances when there is none.
NEW THREAD
It screams of someone trying to be "overly PC" when it was not called for.
You know the statue pulling? Well, that's stopped in the last couple of weeks.
Jenrick was derided by the usual loons but Exeter Council is now keeping Redvers Buller, the Rhodes Commission is going to have to compromise too (they wanted to pull him down) and Sadiq Khan is now looking to add diversity to the public space, rather than purge it.
Good.
New PersonThread
It's like, calm down grandad. Of course you can say baa blaa black sheep just like you can say horseshit, strawman, and breastmilk.
I think that in three and a half years time, the only question will be "how sick is the country of the Tory Party?". Will it be 1992 (or possibly lose popular vote but hang on) or will it be 1997?
My bet is that they can´t fool all of the people all of the time, and that the next year will be a total car crash, so more 1997 than 1992.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I find the narcissism and neediness utterly pathetic, and they earn nothing from me but contempt.
That system is already in place.
I like dressing well. Women really appreciate it, as nearly all women make an effort, but most British men dress like slobs. It really is quite disrespectful to dress so badly.
A large chunk of the population will get through this episode in perfectly good financial shape, and many of those will be sitting on more disposable cash than they've ever had in their lives. There's only so much food and so many pieces of random tat off Amazon that one is likely to wish to buy.
Inequality will probably get substantially worse, but I think it unlikely that all the people who are sitting on piles of cash will, once the nightmare ends, go to the local restaurant once or twice and then revert to sitting at home watching Netflix for the rest of their lives.
*IF* we manage to get out of this lockdown and not fall back into repeated cycles of new ones, then consumerism will be right back in fashion, and is likely to be so for some time.
You call people who give birth "women". Fine. That's your prerogative. However "people who give birth" is still fine.
Therefore the law is fine.
I repeat, get a grip.
My wife was on a work call with someone who has just returned to work after 3 weeks ill with Covid and is still feeling rough.
Age - around 20.
I think March 8 for schools, at least primary, is sensible. We then need 2-3 weeks to evaluate what that does to spread, and build stronger evidence for vaccination effect. I hope the government can hold out against pressure to act prematurely.
--AS
But milk comes from female animals, in nature, so maybe "milk" is sexist, or transphobic?
How about front-chest-human-bottom-juice?