Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

As far as punters are concerned the Tories are set to lose their majority at the next election – pol

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited March 10 in General
imageAs far as punters are concerned the Tories are set to lose their majority at the next election – politicalbetting.com

The Bedata.io chart above shows what’s been happening on the Betfair next general election overall majority betting market. As can be seen a CON majority, now a 34% chance, has risen to its highest level in a year while a LAB majority has dropped to 22%. My guess is that the recent moves are in response to the positive polling news for the Tories.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • TimTTimT Posts: 3,596
    First again. Just in time to call it a night
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    The more remarkable thing is that punters give Labour a 22% chance. Personally I think it should be sub 1%.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.

    Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.

    So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 818
    Everyone seems to have a hill to climb... Tories after 14 years to hold a fractious coalition of red wall, wealthy southern seats and towns across E&W after 3 years of tax rises, Labour to actually wins enough seats anywhere, Lib Dems to just stay in double figures....
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    edited March 10
    Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    edited March 10
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...

    Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 3,770
    ydoethur said:

    No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.

    Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.

    So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.

    Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...

    Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
    The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.

    On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:

    26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
    Straight/Heterosexual
    Gay or Lesbian
    Bisexual
    Other sexual orientation (free text field)

    That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    edited March 10
    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.

    Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.

    So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.

    Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.
    1932 was the year the Samuelite Liberals, who were the one group operating with an independent party structure (other than the Conservatives themselves) formally withdrew. Samuel quit as Home Secretary that October, although it wasn’t until 1933 that they formally returned to the opposition benches.

    Edit - although yes, sorry, it began in 1931 not 1929. Too early, before my morning cuppa! 1929-31 was c+s from Lib to Lab, not a coalition.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...

    Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
    The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.

    On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:

    26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
    Straight/Heterosexual
    Gay or Lesbian
    Bisexual
    Other sexual orientation (free text field)

    That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!
    No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    edited March 10
    Double post.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    Polling can change remarkably quickly. All outcomes are possible.

    FPT
    MikeL said:

    People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:

    Should the Monarchy be abolished?

    Yes 29%
    No 50%

    That's hardly overwhelming support.

    And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9344121/Poll-reveals-majority-Britons-want-Harry-Meghan-stripped-titles.htmln

    29:50 sounds comprehensive but then stranger changes have happened.

    Take these YouGov polls:
    19/08/13 Yes 29% No 59%
    22/10/12 Yes 29% No 55%

    The subject of those YouGov polls? Scottish independence. As it stands the Daily Mail poll on the Royalty gives less support than Scotland's place in the UK had in 2012 and 2013.

    Anything can happen between now and polling day.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 10,792
    edited March 10
    "Covid-19: NHS Test and Trace 'no clear impact' despite £37bn budget"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56340831
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...

    Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
    The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.

    On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:

    26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
    Straight/Heterosexual
    Gay or Lesbian
    Bisexual
    Other sexual orientation (free text field)

    That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!
    No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?
    I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone admits to criminality (but you never know), I was thinking more clever remarks.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    edited March 10
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...

    Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
    The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.

    On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:

    26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
    Straight/Heterosexual
    Gay or Lesbian
    Bisexual
    Other sexual orientation (free text field)

    That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!
    No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?
    I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone admits to criminality (but you never know), I was thinking more clever remarks.
    Perhaps we should have a PB competition for who can come up with the silliest one?

    NOTE - this is not meant seriously.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,452
    It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    Actually, I'm surprise asexual wasn't a listed option in that Census sexuality question.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,996
    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    tlg86 said:

    Actually, I'm surprise asexual wasn't a listed option in that Census sexuality question.

    Always the forgotten one.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 38,017
    edited March 10
    moonshine said:

    It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.

    Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.

    The problem is the time it will take.

    I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143
    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,476
    ydoethur said:

    JohnO said:

    ydoethur said:

    No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.

    Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.

    So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.

    Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.
    1932 was the year the Samuelite Liberals, who were the one group operating with an independent party structure (other than the Conservatives themselves) formally withdrew. Samuel quit as Home Secretary that October, although it wasn’t until 1933 that they formally returned to the opposition benches.

    Edit - although yes, sorry, it began in 1931 not 1929. Too early, before my morning cuppa! 1929-31 was c+s from Lib to Lab, not a coalition.
    Why did I interpret “c+s from Lib” as involving an uncharacteristically rude word?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be a key reason he acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her for such a long time. I think he admitted himself he was angry about it.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,452
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.

    Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.

    The problem is the time it will take.

    I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.
    They are waiting for a big catastrophe or event to swing the dial. But who’s to say that said event doesn’t birth a new party as it has in so many other democracies? Or as others have said, birth a reinvention of the ruling party that effectively resets the clock (as Brexit)?

    It’s lazy and unbecoming of someone aspiring to run a major country.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,138
    Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.

    And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,996
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,138

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself he was angry.
    She's got better taste than I thought!
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 1,452

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 3,053
    tlg86 said:

    Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.

    You're watching It. Jeeez
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 27,996

    tlg86 said:

    Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.

    You're watching It. Jeeez
    Must see telly.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
    His opinion being to say someone talking about their struggles with mental health and feeling suicidal was lying about their mental health and feeling suicidal, without any evidence they were lying, while his employer is running a Get Britain Talking campaign about mental health awareness.

    Oops.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 31,476

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
    His opinion being to say someone talking about their struggles with mental health and feeling suicidal was lying about their mental health and feeling suicidal, without any evidence they were lying, while his employer is running a Get Britain Talking campaign about mental health awareness.

    Oops.
    To be fair he got people talking about mental health...
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,122

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.
    Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.

    Phonehacking.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.
    Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.

    Phonehacking.
    Phone hacking.
    Fake photos against soldiers.
    Now ridiculing mental health.

    Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside.
    I think Morgan's story is that she DM'd him after an event, then they had a nice lunch etc, and she used him to climb the society ladder.

    I hadn't twigged that M started as a suitcase model on Deal or No Deal, amongst other things.

    But then Grace Kelly started with TV parts.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143
    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
    Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.
    Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.

    Phonehacking.
    Phone hacking.
    Fake photos against soldiers.
    Now ridiculing mental health.

    Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.
    I think that last one is unfair. He was clear that it is a very serious issue, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else has to automatically believe her.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,916
    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
    Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.
    So he met her once and he feels jilted and entitled to be closer?

    That's rather creepy. Even if it was a date, perhaps it went badly and she thought he was insufferable.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    tlg86 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.
    Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.

    Phonehacking.
    Phone hacking.
    Fake photos against soldiers.
    Now ridiculing mental health.

    Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.
    I think that last one is unfair. He was clear that it is a very serious issue, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else has to automatically believe her.
    To reflexively say without any evidence that someone is lying about their mental health is pretty reprehensible.

    If someone says they're feeling or felt suicidal and you don't have a nice word to say about it, perhaps don't say anything at all. Plenty of people have criticised her without crossing the line on that.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.
    Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.
    So he met her once and he feels jilted and entitled to be closer?

    That's rather creepy. Even if it was a date, perhaps it went badly and she thought he was insufferable.
    It seems a likely scenario. Meghan only appears about a third narcissist to me, whereas Morgan is three quarters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    edited March 10

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,717
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
    Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 6,916

    Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.

    And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.

    The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
    When will they throw Kate under the bus?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
    Yes, I wasn't meaning to say the institution comes out it well either. It strikes me as a collision between a household that still didn't take some important corrective steps after the Diana disaster, completely incurious about how other European monarchies manage things, with a woman embarked on an idealistic project but also incurious in some other areas and not really wanting to listen that much either. Disaster.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 53,279
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
    When will they throw Kate under the bus?
    Why would they?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
    Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.
    Even her supporters on here didn't believe the Canada nonsense.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,064
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
    This does seem to be something that is being completely glossed over. There are many hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country experiencing periodic or ongoing struggles of individuals with mental health issues of varying degrees of seriousness. Most families don't have "HR departments" to go to to try and work through those issues - the primary source for help has to come from the closest relatives in conjunction with whatever external help can be sought.

    And the comparison with Princess Diana doesn't help them in this respect - because one of the whole issues there was marital breakdown and the explicit presumed absence of loving support from her husband.

    Many of the claims about the difficulties they were under effectively seem to stem from press intrusion and treatment - the criticism of the Royal Family themselves seems (the headline grabbing racial accusation notwithstanding) largely to be of a secondary nature - that they didn't do enough to provide support and protection from the press. But it's very difficult to know exactly what they thought should be done about it - it's easy to criticise for failings, without having solutions. For obvious reasons the Royal Family's relationship with the press is extremely delicate - they simply cannot be at permanent war with them, nor can they insist that they be brought to heel. Royal interventions with the press are infrequent and generally very carefully targeted, and by nature they cannot make an issue of everything they don't like and have to put up with.

    Fundamentally that is where life in the UK and the US differ. Many/most(?) people in this country have a sort of contradictory view of the press. They think it is too intrusive, has far too much power, abuses that power frequently, and is often a malign force in the body politic and public life. But what people desperately want is self regulation - they want the press to realise that themselves and control themselves as a result - they are extremely wary of any attempt to take legal measures to restrict their activity. Because of where that can ultimately lead.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,122
    TOPPING said:

    tlg86 said:

    Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.

    You're watching It. Jeeez
    Must see telly.
    Not as must see as the apology to MM the GMB bosses wanted him to give live on air.

    So he took one for Team Royal - and moved the new cycle from Meghan and Harry to Piers Morgan.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,138

    Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.

    And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.

    The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?
    [email protected]@dy h%ll there's isn't another one! Can't be!
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 3,046

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    edited March 10

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Thanks for the reply.

    The further bit of my comment got lost.

    I'm trying to explore the relations between the concepts of gender / sex, and where sexual orientation fits in in current thinking.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,064

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
    Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.
    That the interview would "reveal" that she had suicidal thoughts is about the most unsurprising aspect about the whole thing. That doesn't mean it was a lie and she may indeed have been in a very fragile mental state at times. But the fact that it was stated doesn't tell you anything either way - firstly because virtually every interview of this nature that i can recall such a claim, and that is possible because i'm sure virtually every one in the world in any sort of difficult position has moments of depression where on some level suicide is contemplated. So everyone can say it and be not directly be lying by saying it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143
    edited March 10
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
    When will they throw Kate under the bus?
    There was a bit early on.

    At present Will and Kate serve as the useful foil in the soap opera, that the others can contrast. Even then there are rumours such as the fall out with Rose Hanbury.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )
    I tell the government I'm a Jedi.

    It is none of the state's business.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 13,280

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )
    My employer keeps asking for this info too.

    Like you I will not provide this information - it has nothing to do with my ability to perform the job.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,122
    alex_ said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.
    Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.
    That the interview would "reveal" that she had suicidal thoughts is about the most unsurprising aspect about the whole thing. That doesn't mean it was a lie and she may indeed have been in a very fragile mental state at times. But the fact that it was stated doesn't tell you anything either way - firstly because virtually every interview of this nature that i can recall such a claim, and that is possible because i'm sure virtually every one in the world in any sort of difficult position has moments of depression where on some level suicide is contemplated. So everyone can say it and be not directly be lying by saying it.
    It's also impossible to dispute. What could Piers Morgan have possibly known about her mental health? Even though his journalist side might have been screaming out "BULLLLLSHIT......", he can't say it. Because Meghan's mental state is unimpeachable.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 5,064
    Re: talk of elderly monarchs as a 'problem' in the previous thread. FFS these days it appears that a US Presidential Election candidate has to be 70 to even get a look in. And they actually have serious power!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,384
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.

    I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.

    Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.
    It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.
    I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.

    It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
    I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.
    Marina Hyde is on the button today:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19

    And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19

    Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.

    Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
    When will they throw Kate under the bus?
    There was a bit early on.

    At present Will and Kate serve as the useful foil in the soap opera, that the others can contrast. Even then there are rumours such as the fall out with Rose Hanbury.

    I remember she had a bit of a wobble as to whether she really wanted it - but that seemed sensible, because at least she was acknowledging that she wasn't just marrying any old guy.

    Rose Hanbury? Never heard of her until now. Perhaps the press covered it up, but blimey, that would be a huge story to pass up if you thought it was true.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 5,419
    ydoethur said:

    No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.

    Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.

    So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.

    Think you're right.

    I'd also point out that everyone knows that the economic picture is going to be tricky for a good while. Whilst most people are fairly happy with what the government is doing it's clear that issues such as the recent NHS pay offer will be troublesome in the future for the government. Once more normal politics resumes there will be lots of these. Overall the Tories have won the argument that we should be careful where possible on spending, but that balance is a delicate one.

    I think there's also some effect in that political bettors probably on balance want a Tory government and thus are slightly inclined towards not doubling up on their interests.

    I backed the Tories and layed Labour a few weeks ago in modest size, I've broadly flattened out now as I think the pricing is now about right given ydoethurs comments and my thoughts.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,122

    Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.

    And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.

    The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?
    [email protected]@dy h%ll there's isn't another one! Can't be!
    We need to tighten up those cloning laws....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 53,946
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    Let me add a question to both.

    So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?

    I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    Mike - thanks for the header.

    I am far too timid to bet on anything this fat out :-) .
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,452
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    Let me add a question to both.

    So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?

    I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.
    Gen y is a synonym for millenial
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 22,138

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.
    Wasteful!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,143
    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    Let me add a question to both.

    So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?

    I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.
    If someone changes their sexual orientation, such as a friend of mine, formerly happily heterosexually married with children, coming out as gay, it is generally taken that he was always gay, just repressed and living a lie.

    On the other hand, I know straight people who had homosexual experiences as youths , but became firmly heterosexual later. Were they also living a lie, or are they doing so now? No one can know, other than the individual.

    I do think that identity is a flexible thing, and how we see ourselves, and how we interact with the world changes over time. I don't see why sexuality should be more rigid than any other durable aspect of self.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 7,277
    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    Let me add a question to both.

    So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?

    I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.
    Gen y is a synonym for millenial
    Thanks. Missed that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    I think that is the key point - the cultural/societal pressures to stay in a particular lane are vastly diminished compared to (say) twenty years ago.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 40,122
    Andy_JS said:
    So, just Piers and Winnie against the world....

    *thud*
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,362
    Andy_JS said:
    Translation: I was sick of the early mornings anyway.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 3,094
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.

    Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.

    The problem is the time it will take.

    I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.
    They are waiting for a big catastrophe or event to swing the dial. But who’s to say that said event doesn’t birth a new party as it has in so many other democracies? Or as others have said, birth a reinvention of the ruling party that effectively resets the clock (as Brexit)?

    It’s lazy and unbecoming of someone aspiring to run a major country.
    Labour's problem is that a 'big catastrophe' indeed has occurred. !00k + dead, borrowing trillions you can't pay back, nil returns on safe investment for the middling sort, leaving the world's largest free trade area, renewing the Irish problem. All that and the dial has not swung.

    The Tory genius for reinvention is at its height, while Labour still seem stuck in a conflict between socialists and social democrats; not seeming to notice that the Tories have stolen the social democrat/centrist left clothes and run.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,362
    Boris has a piece in the Telegraph trying to save the union by promising a ton of road and rail projects. Dualing the A1 etc.

    "So together with Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, I have asked Sir Peter Hendy to address the problem of Union connectivity. He has just produced his interim report, before final conclusions in the summer."

    "why are we stopping HS2 in England?"

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/strengthening-sinews-transport-network-will-make-road-recovery/
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 40,362
    Why are we stopping HS2 at Birmingham might be a more immediate question for the PM to be asking his ministers.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,703
    On topic, it's too early for me to be playing this market because the parameters for it haven't firmed up yet.

    They will in 12-18 months time because by then we'll know (a) how Scotland is likely to play out (b) how the Covid recovery is turning out (c) Starmer will be set in stone and (d) we'll know Johnson's new cabinet and how it's managing the recovery.

    I'm assuming the election will be by May 2024, and it's the spring-summer of 2022 that'll firm up the horizon for it.

    That's when I'll start to place bets.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538
    The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.
    And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    tlg86 said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules

    Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.

    The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.


    This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.

    Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.

    That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.

    Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
    I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.

    eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."

    There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.

    Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.

    Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
    I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.

    Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.

    Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.

    Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
    Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.

    It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
    When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.
    And what did they say of you ? :smile:
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    Nigelb said:

    The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.
    And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
    "British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538
    Andy_JS said:
    Is Piers really thick enough to confuse the ideas of freedom of speech, and freedom to say anything you like in your capacity as a salaried employee ?

    (Probably.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 30,538

    Nigelb said:

    The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.
    And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
    "British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.
    So you're saying the palace are as cynical a bunch of spin merchants as they claim MM to be ?

    I wouldn't argue with that.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 1,717
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Is Piers really thick enough to confuse the ideas of freedom of speech, and freedom to say anything you like in your capacity as a salaried employee ?

    (Probably.)
    What I find funny is the abuse that he gave politicians over the past year where he accused them of lying all the time. Apparently that was perfectly fine and the GMTV weatherman was up for that.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 4,116
    edited March 10
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.
    And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
    "British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.
    So you're saying the palace are as cynical a bunch of spin merchants as they claim MM to be ?

    I wouldn't argue with that.
    I wouldn't particularly say that in this particular case. I think that was a clever statement, largely in the Queen's own voice, which contained important concession along with the qualifications to ward off conservative criticism.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,987
    edited March 10
    Personally I would put a Tory majority ahead of a hung Parliament in terms of probability without in any way making it nailed on. I would therefore agree that there is some value in the Tory majority price but I am not sure it is enough to get excited about this far out.

    The facts that the Tories can lose 39 seats and still have a majority; that the boundary changes may well give them an even larger lead than that, the Labour seem to have an uninspiring leader and a dearth of alternative talent and that the Tories have several options to Boris all tend to suggest to me that they should be favourites for a majority.

    The Westminster system really only produces hung Parliaments when there is a significant third party element. Whilst we have the SNP the Lib Dems seem to be making no impact at all and are probably more at risk of being supplanted by the Greens than making a breakthrough at this point.

    22% support for a Labour majority is perhaps the most bewildering of all.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,708

    Why are we stopping HS2 at Birmingham might be a more immediate question for the PM to be asking his ministers.

    Why are we doing HS2 at all would seem to be a more pertinent question.
Sign In or Register to comment.