The Real Madrid president, Florentino Pérez, said the 12 clubs announced last week as founders of the European Super League cannot abandon it due to binding contracts and promised the project would return soon.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Real Madrid must be in desperate trouble for him to come up with this bullshit. They could find themselves expelled from the existing structures with nowhere else to go. I trust Ferrari have been watching.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
The Real Madrid president, Florentino Pérez, said the 12 clubs announced last week as founders of the European Super League cannot abandon it due to binding contracts and promised the project would return soon.
Pérez, whose club is one of three along with Barcelona and Juventus yet to withdraw, said it was not so simple for clubs to leave. “I don’t need to explain what a binding contract is but effectively, the clubs cannot leave,” Pérez told Spanish newspaper AS. “Some of them, due to pressure, have said they’re leaving. But this project, or one very similar, will move forward and I hope very soon.”
Real Madrid must be in desperate trouble for him to come up with this bullshit. They could find themselves expelled from the existing structures with nowhere else to go. I trust Ferrari have been watching.
I suspect and believe that the 3 clubs that haven't left the super league all need a rapid and very large injection of money.
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Yes, but as I said, the right aren't sending kids for gender reassignment so I can live with it.
The scenes in London today do absolubtely no favours whatsoever for anyone on the sensible civil liberites side of the argument against vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports, lockdowns, vaccines themselves. All part of Bill Gates' plandemic innit.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
I don't recall that ever being said. Are you just making that up, or have you actually had conversations with people who said that?
My kids have always had different racial toys (Doc McStuffins was one of their first dolls).
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Yes, but as I said, the right aren't sending kids for gender reassignment so I can live with it.
I must admit I literally have no idea what the Labour policy is on such things but neither do I know the Conservative policy.
I don't even know what the law is on the subject as of now.
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Yes, but as I said, the right aren't sending kids for gender reassignment so I can live with it.
I wasn't aware we'd elected a Labour Government? The Tories have been in power for over a decade now, are you complaining about the last Labour Government that ended in 2010?
How long before those who proclaimed Dom a model of integrity over Barnard Castle suddenly decide that he's a lying and conniving little shit now that he's being beastly to Boris?
I don't think anyone ever really thought that.
You clearly weren't around here at the time. There were some posters who were practically nominating him for the Parent of the Year award.
There was a time when I wasn't on.much if at all .. my mother in.law was reaching the end of her life.. the point I was making was that whatever they might have been posting, it was unlikely that they actually believed it.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
The interesting thing is the hospital admissions
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
Look at hospital numbers on and English regional basis.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
Admissions with something other than covid who then test + for covid?
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
No.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
False positives, false admissions, false deaths, So much falsehood.
The problem is people trying to fit data to theories.
The numbers dying match up pretty well with the hospital admissions. Both are in a "long tail", slowly descending.
As to why that is - well, a bunch of people are getting sick with COVID and dying of it.
The data I would like to see, is the vaccination status of those admitted and dying of COVID. This would tell us how much the reduced rates are due to vaccination and how much due to lockdown. All we can say, otherwise - both have an effect.
The dashboard folk have told me that they haven't been given that data. So there we are rather stuck.
Vaccine appointment finally arrived this morning. I got first, husband second. Thought I might be Moderna'd after all the recent developments but have actually had AZ. No ill effects ten hours later, so cautiously optimistic that I've escaped the side effects.
May 17th is only just over three weeks away, so we are now treating that as freedom day. Day trips out of town and starting back at the gym will resume from then. We're also starting to think about parental visits and a holiday (in England) later in the year.
Weather today best so far this year, went out to lunch with friends we've not seen for a long time, out again for Sunday roast tomorrow. I still won't believe that social distancing and evil masks are buried until it happens, but that aside it feels like this bloody torment is, finally, almost at an end.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
I don't recall that ever being said. Are you just making that up, or have you actually had conversations with people who said that?
My kids have always had different racial toys (Doc McStuffins was one of their first dolls).
"Doc McStuffins" was literally lauded because it portrayed a non-white main character in a mainstream cartoon.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
The interesting thing is the hospital admissions
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
Look at hospital numbers on and English regional basis.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
Admissions with something other than covid who then test + for covid?
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
No.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
False positives, false admissions, false deaths, So much falsehood.
The problem is people trying to fit data to theories.
The numbers dying match up pretty well with the hospital admissions. Both are in a "long tail", slowly descending.
As to why that is - well, a bunch of people are getting sick with COVID and dying of it.
The data I would like to see, is the vaccination status of those admitted and dying of COVID. This would tell us how much the reduced rates are due to vaccination and how much due to lockdown. All we can say, otherwise - both have an effect.
The dashboard folk have told me that they haven't been given that data. So there we are rather stuck.
If, in the fullness of time, it comes out that SAGE were somehow not looking at this, it would be incredibly remiss of them. It may be that the government doesn't want to share it with the public.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
We do seem to be at herd immunity for current levels of mixing. R is only a little below 1, so perhaps not quite there yet for unrestricted mixing, but not too far off.
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
--AS
Given that R is quite stable - based on the hospital admissions -
I can see why remaining with the plan is attractive. Among other things, by May 17th, the numbers *fully vaccinated* will be interesting....
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
I don't recall that ever being said. Are you just making that up, or have you actually had conversations with people who said that?
My kids have always had different racial toys (Doc McStuffins was one of their first dolls).
"Doc McStuffins" was literally lauded because it portrayed a non-white main character in a mainstream cartoon.
Non-white human character.
From the 80s girls cartoons like Care Bears, Gummy Bears and My Little Pony all had non-white characters. 😉
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
And it still would be woke / PCGM
More non-white dolls should be made if there is commercial demand. And, if not, then they shouldn’t.
The scenes in London today do absolubtely no favours whatsoever for anyone on the sensible civil liberites side of the argument against vaccine passports.
Vaccine passports, lockdowns, vaccines themselves. All part of Bill Gates' plandemic innit.
The silly protest aside, the scenes up and down the country today do actually show up the vax passports scheme for all it is; utterly unnecessary. Beer gardens are packed. Shops are busy. Vax centres are packed. There is no need to deprive anyone of their civil liberties or force biz to adopt silly rules, because vaccine take up is tremendous and we're beating this blasted virus.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I don't think they "take the knee" in the US either so I'm not sure what your point is.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Yes, it is an issue particularly when considering life changing treatments like puberty blockers etc. Puberty is an emotional time, and one that girls generally face sooner. It is a time too of experimentation. There have always been tomboys, and effeminate boys, but that doesn't necessarily mean either Gay or Trans, and I do wonder whether they are now pushed by peers and society to identify as one or other of these.
I am quite happy to leave it in the hands of the child psychiatrists, though these are woefully underfunded, with very long waiting lists, not just for gender dysphoria either.
Sensible position.
I think our society works best when we allow decent latitude for gender expression.
Personally, although I’m pretty gender conforming, I’ve always hated male gatekeepers who take the piss/try to police masculinity.
For me, that is a big chunk of the trans issue, right there.
Clamp down on the bullies and these kids lives will get a lot better. Pills/Surgery should be a last resort.
I suppose that I have generally been gender conforming, though not universally. I only became interested in football when my son became keen. I wasn't bothered by sport until aged 35 for example.
I think that there is a problem with gender gate keepers policing both girls and boys. It starts very oung too, with gendered clothing and toys. We do need to be more accepting of personal eccentricity and individuality in these things. Once that was seen as a strong British cultural value, but now we are informed that there is only one way to be a boy, one way to be a girl and one way to be a patriot by the self appointed "anti-woke" police.
Let a thousand flowers bloom, and value the variety of the rich tapestry that is human existence. Tolerance, acceptance and respecting how others want to live their lives are not uniquely British, but they are a core part of what being British means to me.
Yeah, the gendered toy thing is utter bollocks. I've given my daughter toy tractors, cars, trains and bricks, and baby dolls and a pushchair. We didn't "foist" anything on her.
As you can imagine I'm not interested in the latter but whenever she wants to play it's the dolls and pushchair she wants to go for.
She's a very opinionated and assertive young lady who knows her own mind. And she's only two.
I bet parents giving their daughters 'boy toys' is more common than giving their sons 'girl toys'.
I wonder if this is subliminal acceptance that the Patriarchy is a real thing?
Similarly, I wonder how many on here have children's dolls of a different ethnicity to themselves/their partner.
Our daughter has both Hispanic and African American dolls as well as white dolls
Not too long ago it would probably have been described as "woke" or "political correctness gone mad" to suggest that more non-white dolls be made.
I don't recall that ever being said. Are you just making that up, or have you actually had conversations with people who said that?
My kids have always had different racial toys (Doc McStuffins was one of their first dolls).
Shame on them for choosing a human girl over a pink hippo!
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I don't think they "take the knee" in the US either so I'm not sure what your point is.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
In the wake of revelations that David Cameron lobbied the chancellor on behalf of Greensill Capital for Covid-related public funds, some 76% of people said it was unacceptable for a former prime minister to use his contacts to help a company he works for get favours from the current government.
In relation to claims that the billionaire businessman James Dyson and Johnson exchanged texts about tax arrangements for Dyson’s staff involved in the supply of ventilators, some 70% of people said it was unacceptable for the CEO of a large, well-known business to send a text to the prime minister to persuade him to maintain or introduce favourable tax arrangements for his company.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I don't think they "take the knee" in the US either so I'm not sure what your point is.
They do actually, it comes from NFL.
Yeah — it comes from the NFL as part of an anti-racism protest during the national anthem. It isn't some longstanding tradition.
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Well he's only beaten Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
Rewriting history there Mike.
Might want to check your notes on betting against Livingstone. Livingstone was polling in the lead and the heavy odds on favourite at the start of 2008.
Livingstone was discredited by losing to Boris. Boris made him discredited.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
Trust you to know that Charles
Although Oscar Wilde said “love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling”
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Well he's only beaten Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
I hope you enjoyed your holiday to Northumberland OGH. Speak to any red-wallers?
He was desperately trying to find the last remaining Lib Dem’s in Berwick upon Tweed. Amazed to think the seat went from a man like Alan Beith, who I have always thought was a good guy to a right wing Tory brexiteer
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Yet in taking he knee he signalled to all of us that he believes Britain to be a racist country. It isn't. He signed up to the bullshit wokery because he is an unserious politician and can't be trusted to defend our culture. The knee is an American import where there are serious racial issues in society, it is simply unBritish.
You're just projecting your own beliefs onto the act.
Starmer "took the knee" in support of an ideal everyone should be able to get behind — that black lives matter.
Yes it's an American import, but we have tons of American imports. it's nothing to do with "tradition" and it's nothing to do with "bullshit wokery". Christ.
But the unBritish part of it is that everyone in this country already believes that. We don't have the same racial issues as the US. Starmer took the knee either because he believes the UK is a racist country, or because he is an unserious politician that can't say no to twitter pressure. Neither reflects well on him.
And you keep projecting.
Starmer took the knee because he supported the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, all sharing one message — that black lives matter.
It has nothing to do with whether the UK is a "racist country".
Why on earth are you conflating the two?
The fact you think that Starmer is an unserious politician because he chose to support black lives matter is laughable.
If he doesn't think the UK is a racist country then what was he taking the knee for? He's a politician in the UK, not the US. He represents black people in the UK, not the US. Black people here face different challenges to black people in the US.
I'm not sure why you need this explaining. He was supporting the wave of protests that follows George Floyd's death, sharing a common message — that black lives matter. Plenty of British people did.
He was pretending he gave a crap, typical politician as they will jump on any bandwagon that they hope gets them some kudos. He is an absolute tit.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I don't think they "take the knee" in the US either so I'm not sure what your point is.
They do actually, it comes from NFL.
Yeah — it comes from the NFL as part of an anti-racism protest during the national anthem. It isn't some longstanding tradition.
No, during the game players can take a knee as a tactic in the game. It's something most Americans know about.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
Yes, but as I said, the right aren't sending kids for gender reassignment so I can live with it.
I wasn't aware we'd elected a Labour Government? The Tories have been in power for over a decade now, are you complaining about the last Labour Government that ended in 2010?
In 2010 Brown was still claiming his boom and bust was better than a ‘Tory’ boom and bust (and lying about having said he’d abolished boom and bust).
In 1997 the Tories were claiming a Labour government would mean a return to the Winter of Discontent.
In 1959 Macmillan campaigned on Labour having failed to get rid of rationing by 1951.
In 1951 Bevan was still using the threat of high unemployment in 1932 as a reason not to vote Tory.
So I am afraid you are being a bit optimistic in expecting politicians to own up for their own shite record.
(A particularly egregious example was David Mellor, who in 1993 said he thought, Black Wednesday notwithstanding, that the Tories’ record compared favourably to that of the Asquith government. Which was true, but somewhat irrelevant.)
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I genuflect, but apart from that and proposing to my wife, I’ve never knelt to anyone.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
I've knelt on one knee once in recent memory, to my wife when I proposed to her, we don't "take a knee" like the US does.
I don't think they "take the knee" in the US either so I'm not sure what your point is.
They do actually, it comes from NFL.
Yeah — it comes from the NFL as part of an anti-racism protest during the national anthem. It isn't some longstanding tradition.
No, during the game players can take a knee as a tactic in the game. It's something most Americans know about.
I feel like you're reaching here.
The fact is "taking the knee" is just as much a symbol of submission in the US as it is in the UK.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Vietnam demonstrated that they were wrong.
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
That's...not how numbers work.
This is embarrassing.
Yes it is.
100% - 37% = 63%
You can't conclude 63% think Boris Johnson isn't corrupt. 63% includes a whole load of don't knows, you can't just put that into your column because you feel like it.
More people think BoJo is corrupt than don't, end of story.
I knew the usual suspects would find a way to explain this away, not actually address the point.
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
That's...not how numbers work.
This is embarrassing.
Yes it is.
100% - 37% = 63%
You can't conclude 63% think Boris Johnson isn't corrupt. 63% includes a whole load of don't knows, you can't just put that into your column because you feel like it.
More people think BoJo is corrupt than don't, end of story.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If 37% think he's corrupt then 63% don't think he is. Don't know belongs to don't.
EDIT: And it looks like that Tweet has now been deleted too. So you've not only gotten the wrong end of the stick but possibly gone running off dodgy data.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Vietnam demonstrated that they were wrong.
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
Have we heard enough from experts then? :-) Sorry....
The answer is, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether closing the borders would have made a difference.
Given that Vietnam's experience with COVID - low cases, hospitalisations and deaths - has been replicated in countries that didn't close borders... it just tells me that I don't know.
The more I look at the data on COVID, the more inconsistent much of it is - low effects in some countries and then followed by disaster, more recently. There are effects here that I don't understand. Which is what makes it interesting...
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
The interesting thing is the hospital admissions
Which are steadily falling, but haven't collapsed, leading to R derived from hospital admissions to look like this
Looking at the groups being admitted -
The vaccinated groups are still a big proportion of those entering hospital - though much less than before.
Though the vaccinated groups are now the least likely to have a detected case of COVID - by a considerable margin
Look at hospital numbers on and English regional basis.
London has a steadily increasing proportion - the effect of anti-vaxxers perhaps.
Admissions with something other than covid who then test + for covid?
If the admissions line is flat despite falling cases then are we looking at false positives here?
No.
"False positives" is really the biggest red herring of the whole pandemic, the Gov't following up +ve LFTs with PCRs for schools has killed it once and for all.
Additionally the antibodies can't be at the rate they are at without a massive number of false negatives /non tests of Covid.
False positives, false admissions, false deaths, So much falsehood.
The problem is people trying to fit data to theories.
The numbers dying match up pretty well with the hospital admissions. Both are in a "long tail", slowly descending.
As to why that is - well, a bunch of people are getting sick with COVID and dying of it.
The data I would like to see, is the vaccination status of those admitted and dying of COVID. This would tell us how much the reduced rates are due to vaccination and how much due to lockdown. All we can say, otherwise - both have an effect.
The dashboard folk have told me that they haven't been given that data. So there we are rather stuck.
If, in the fullness of time, it comes out that SAGE were somehow not looking at this, it would be incredibly remiss of them. It may be that the government doesn't want to share it with the public.
--AS
We know that it is being looked at - the Edinburgh study for example.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Vietnam demonstrated that they were wrong.
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
Have we heard enough from experts then? :-) Sorry....
The answer is, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether closing the borders would have made a difference.
Given that Vietnam's experience with COVID - low cases, hospitalisations and deaths - has been replicated in countries that didn't close borders... it just tells me that I don't know.
The more I look at the data on COVID, the more inconsistent much of it is - low effects in some countries and then followed by disaster, more recently. There are effects here that I don't understand. Which is what makes it interesting...
I think we have to take official numbers for some countries with a huge sack of salt though. I can't imagine the situation in Iran is any different to India right now but we just won't hear about it.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
Trust you to know that Charles
Although Oscar Wilde said “love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling”
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Vietnam demonstrated that they were wrong.
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
Have we heard enough from experts then? :-) Sorry....
The answer is, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether closing the borders would have made a difference.
Given that Vietnam's experience with COVID - low cases, hospitalisations and deaths - has been replicated in countries that didn't close borders... it just tells me that I don't know.
The more I look at the data on COVID, the more inconsistent much of it is - low effects in some countries and then followed by disaster, more recently. There are effects here that I don't understand. Which is what makes it interesting...
I think we have to take official numbers for some countries with a huge sack of salt though. I can't imagine the situation in Iran is any different to India right now but we just won't hear about it.
Oh sure on the countries stupid enough to lie about it.
But even when you exclude them, what about the massive variations in admissions/death ratios? The ebbs and flows of cases? There is so much here that we don't know. Lots of science to be done.
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Well he's only beaten Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
Rewriting history there Mike.
Might want to check your notes on betting against Livingstone. Livingstone was polling in the lead and the heavy odds on favourite at the start of 2008.
Livingstone was discredited by losing to Boris. Boris made him discredited.
Not quite, Philip.
YouGov had Boris Johnson ahead of Ken Livingstone consistently from February 2008. Some other pollsters offered different outcomes but YouGov had it nailed from some way out.
The 5-way polling and direct Boris vs Ken polling showed Johnson ahead for much of the time.
And they just don't care, how terribly sad that is for all of us.
Tory lead up.
So 63% don't think that? Good.
The 37% saying he is are probably Labour/SNP and other partisans.
The link says tweet not available... details svp
The Tweet simply said that 37% think Boris is corrupt. But since it's now been deleted it probably isn't something to be repeating.
Has it asked how corrupt a whole range of people are for comparison purposes. If not its meaningless. Especially if eg 73 % were to think SKS or Ms Sturgeon were corrupt ..... Boris by comparison would be a Saint.
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Well he's only beaten Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
Rewriting history there Mike.
Might want to check your notes on betting against Livingstone. Livingstone was polling in the lead and the heavy odds on favourite at the start of 2008.
Livingstone was discredited by losing to Boris. Boris made him discredited.
Not quite, Philip.
YouGov had Boris Johnson ahead of Ken Livingstone consistently from February 2008. Some other pollsters offered different outcomes but YouGov had it nailed from some way out.
The 5-way polling and direct Boris vs Ken polling showed Johnson ahead for much of the time.
Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Vietnam demonstrated that they were wrong.
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
Have we heard enough from experts then? :-) Sorry....
The answer is, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether closing the borders would have made a difference.
Given that Vietnam's experience with COVID - low cases, hospitalisations and deaths - has been replicated in countries that didn't close borders... it just tells me that I don't know.
The more I look at the data on COVID, the more inconsistent much of it is - low effects in some countries and then followed by disaster, more recently. There are effects here that I don't understand. Which is what makes it interesting...
I’m getting more and more concerned that some experts are riding personal hobby horses regardless of facts. For example, masks in schools. There was due to be a report on the effect of this in Scotland. So far as I know it has never been published. Given Scotland had been using them for months up to December, there should be meaningful data there. So why has it not been published? Well, a quick glance at the figures suggests it makes precisely fuck all difference. After all, first of all, children don’t keep them on for hours at a time (leaving aside the minor detail they have to take them off to eat, they play with them and fidget with them and drop them everywhere) but secondly, all the evidence so far is that masks stop transmission in low-contact situations, e.g. passing in the street, not if you’re breathing the same air in the same room for hours.
So why do we still have masks in schools? Because a few medics like feeling powerful and a few disgraced politicians like Williamson, Gibb and Swinney indulge them because the unions, with equal folly, believe that it will make everyone safer and have unfortunately conned too many of their members into thinking that. Never mind how uncomfortable they are for children, or how difficult it makes my life as a deaf teacher, or how ineffectual they are. Heck, it’s actually illegal to make masks mandatory for those reasons, which is why they’ve made it an ‘advisory’ and forced schools to police it with tight guidelines.
Such people are scum, not experts. Their opinions should be treated with contempt.
And no, contrarian has not hacked my account and he’s still a lying, selfish twat.
Edit - and the point about Vietnam is that their quarantine is the only rational explanation for the disease not having run riot, given their climate, dwelling accommodation and proximity to China.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
We do seem to be at herd immunity for current levels of mixing. R is only a little below 1, so perhaps not quite there yet for unrestricted mixing, but not too far off.
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
--AS
One thing about the 17th May loosening is that it wouldn't change much. Every weekend since Easter my neighbours have had large groups around in their pub-in-a-shed. I doubt they are alone. There's a lot more indoor mixing, singing and socialising happening then you would think if you looked at the official restrictions - and we're not seeing a rise in cases.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
The WHO recommended that Johnson get Tory donors to pay for a home makeover? Missed that, I must say.
BoJo just goes where the polls tell him to go. He doesn't actually have any beliefs or principles.
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Well he's only beaten Livingstone and Corbyn - both totally discredited figures.
Rewriting history there Mike.
Might want to check your notes on betting against Livingstone. Livingstone was polling in the lead and the heavy odds on favourite at the start of 2008.
Livingstone was discredited by losing to Boris. Boris made him discredited.
Not quite, Philip.
YouGov had Boris Johnson ahead of Ken Livingstone consistently from February 2008. Some other pollsters offered different outcomes but YouGov had it nailed from some way out.
The 5-way polling and direct Boris vs Ken polling showed Johnson ahead for much of the time.
Last time I checked the start of 2008 was January. January 2008 YouGov had Livingstone 4 points in the lead.
Livingstone was also in the lead November and December 2007 with YouGov.
So it's really not reasonable to suggest Livingstone was discredited in 2008 when Boris was behind him originally in the polls. Maybe Livingstone was discredited by February or once Boris was done with him, but that's a different matter.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
The WHO recommended that Johnson get Tory donors to pay for a home makeover? Missed that, I must say.
It was all a misunderstanding. Johnson asked ‘who paid’ and Sunak thought it was a statement not a question.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Some 37% of voters describe Johnson as mostly or completely corrupt, compared with 31% who say he is clean and honest. Even more – 38% – say the Conservative party as a whole is corrupt with just 31% saying it is clean and honest.
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
Yeah these are opposition partisans.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
That's...not how numbers work.
This is embarrassing.
Yes it is.
100% - 37% = 63%
You can't conclude 63% think Boris Johnson isn't corrupt. 63% includes a whole load of don't knows, you can't just put that into your column because you feel like it.
More people think BoJo is corrupt than don't, end of story.
Innocent until proven guilty.
If 37% think he's corrupt then 63% don't think he is. Don't know belongs to don't.
EDIT: And it looks like that Tweet has now been deleted too. So you've not only gotten the wrong end of the stick but possibly gone running off dodgy data.
I do not know the details of this tweet but I would comment as follows
The lobbying scandal rotates around David Cameron and civil servants
On the Dyson tax issue he requested that his staff working in the UK beyond 90 days were not penalised and exceptions were granted due to the crisis to all the contractors who were in a similar position Did the polling explain this detail properly
The attack by Cummings on Boris is coming from a source who has trashed his own reputation and integrity
And details of Boris being a chancer, unreliable, dishonest and having a chaotic private life are already accepted and he has a unique ability to attract the red wall voters by being himself, not pretending he loves the flag or is patriotic, as that is in his dna and he has succeeded with the vaccine rollout, opening up the economy, slaying the ESL, and being someone lotd of people would enjoy a pint with
This contradiction causes his opponents to cry in despair with no real way of genuinely responding, other than to cry foul while Boris just continues on his way
It would be foolish to underestimate the teflon nature of Boris, but someday he will be removed, but that looks quite sometime away
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
We do seem to be at herd immunity for current levels of mixing. R is only a little below 1, so perhaps not quite there yet for unrestricted mixing, but not too far off.
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
--AS
One thing about the 17th May loosening is that it wouldn't change much. Every weekend since Easter my neighbours have had large groups around in their pub-in-a-shed. I doubt they are alone. There's a lot more indoor mixing, singing and socialising happening then you would think if you looked at the official restrictions - and we're not seeing a rise in cases.
This is why Yougov polls of people supporting restrictions or not are a complete waste of time.
At each stage people make their own judgements of what is possible and/or risky or not, and then decide on what restrictions they think everyone else ought to live under.
Cases down even though an increase in testing with the schools back. Very positive
Shows we're not opening up nearly fast enough.
Schools have been off for two weeks in the beginning of the month, so may not yet be much of a test.
We're up to the 24th though, if there was an effect from schools reopening we'd be seeing it now and we'd definitely be seeing an unlockdown rise in cases if there was going to be one. I think we may have reached herd immunity already due to prior infection plus first vaccinations now covering close to 70% of the whole population.
We do seem to be at herd immunity for current levels of mixing. R is only a little below 1, so perhaps not quite there yet for unrestricted mixing, but not too far off.
Although I tend to be cautious, I actually do think that the government could bring the 17th May ahead by a week, if data is still good in a week's time. Their 5-week interval was, for reasons that I found quite convincing, based on the time needed to detect a rise in hospitalization. But a rise in hospitalization is extremely unlikely unless there is first a rise in cases, and we aren't seeing that. Hence I think they could safely advance a week (and by another week for the 21st June date if cases still drop).
I imagine that they were expecting to see cases flatline or slightly rise, but hospitalizations keep dropping, in which case they would need the full amount of time to get evidence for that. It's good news that they have been surprised on the upside.
--AS
One thing about the 17th May loosening is that it wouldn't change much. Every weekend since Easter my neighbours have had large groups around in their pub-in-a-shed. I doubt they are alone. There's a lot more indoor mixing, singing and socialising happening then you would think if you looked at the official restrictions - and we're not seeing a rise in cases.
Indeed, and by May 17th we're going to be up to 22m people with second doses and around 37m with one dose to a minimum efficacy level. Plus younger people with prior infection it is highly unlikely that we won'thave reached herd immunity.
As Mike implies Starmer has gone from looking competent at first to being, well a bit rubbish. I honestly think Labour would be closer in the polls under Corbyn right now.
Dom Bess took five of the six wickets to fall today in Sussex’s second innings. First step on his road to England rehabilitation ?
Also Hameed made his first century since 2019....
And Glaws fell agonisingly exactly 1 short of making Hampshire bat again.
Hants already looking for my money favourites for the title. They’ve always had the bowling, but this year the batting is just beyond belief. Every time they go to the crease they seem to rattle off 450.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
That’s a question best aimed at them
The question of whether closing the border would make a difference was asked.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
Exactly. The govt has made plenty of errors for sure but in this case they followed the advice, as they did with releasing people back into care homes (PHE) yet none of the bodies that gave the advice is held to account. Merely treated with deference,
Last year, I posted here about the following - civil servants were appalled to discover that ministers would refuse to accept responsibility at an eventual COVID enquiry for actions by permanent officials that *went against* Ministerial decisions.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A" - Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first - Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
Punb chat from last night - the Tories should have run Rory. Everyone around the table would have voted for him but none want to vote for Bailey. I got most of them on board for the Lib Dem, everyone just assumes Sadiq has his wrapped up but I don't know anyone voting for him. Obviously he has it wrapped up and the issue is that I just don't speak to any Sadiq voters as we probably don't have a lot of crossover. It does mean there is a market in 2024/5 for a not-Sadiq candidate, especially with brexit in the rear view mirror.
FWIW, and I don't move in your pub circles, I'd have probably given Rory my second preference vote. As it is, I'm disinclined to exercise my second vote again. I have no confidence in either Sadiq Khan or Shaun Bailey.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
As an aside, the latest London Mayoral poll as follows:
Of the others, Mandu Reid of the Women's Equality Party has 4% which means, if I have this right, the remaining candidates fighting over 8% of the vote - like so many bald individuals over a comb.
"Cummings fires ANOTHER broadside at Boris: Now vengeful ex-advisor suggests Britain's failure to close its borders at start of pandemic was a 'disaster' after bombshell accusations of incompetence and borderline illegality
Former No10 aide suggested scientific consensus that travel bans wouldn't prevent Covid was flawed Mr Cummings tweeted this was a 'very important issue re learning from the disaster', in response to a thread Mr Cummings yesterday made clear he was prepared to criticise the Government he only recently departed In a blog post he accused the PM of trying to block a leak inquiry that implicated a friend of his fiancée"
Another issue that Starmer should be hammering rather than Cummings.
Yet all the govt did was follow the advice of Public Health England, the CMO and World Health Organisation. So attack on the govt simply attacks these. They have an easy rebuttal.
Public Health England were advising the government on whether to close the border? Why?
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
As the war passes out of living memory, the commemoration is naturally going to change - get a bit wonkier, people putting their own spin on it. It will eventually be the same as Guy Fawkes night.
All this is true but he has an 11% lead and is popular irrespective of all the allegations which seem to be baked in to public attitudes
Doesn't mean they're not worth talking about though.
Of course not and Boris seems to be defying gravity and maybe his opponents should look more at themselves, and ask why they are not breaking through
In any normal cycle and with a pandemic, all oppositions, not least Labour, should be making hay and they are not
I have expressed my views over the last few days and to be honest I don't have an answer on how Labour square the metropolitan elite with the red wall voters
Wear it, don't wear it. I'm not that fussed. I completely reject the idea that people who don't wear it are anti-British or anti-military though. I loathe poppy fascism.
But do you see my point though?
It isn't just "the left" who are fighting tradition in the "culture war".
As the war passes out of living memory, the commemoration is naturally going to change - get a bit wonkier, people putting their own spin on it. It will eventually be the same as Guy Fawkes night.
You'd think we'd be remembering those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan and heroes like Lee Rigby.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Labour are not squarely in the second camp. The Tories under Mrs May were looking at reforming the GRA such that a formal medical diagnosis of dysphoria was no longer needed. Under Johnson such plans have been shelved but promises have been made for a "kinder, cheaper, more straightforward" transitioning process. Labour under Starmer have kept their distance, saying merely that they will scrutinize whatever plans are in due course put forward. The left of the party are not best pleased (obvs) but they have been marginalized.
I'll believe it when I see it. Starmer took the knee, he's not a defender of tradition.
This is total horsesh*t man. There's no "British tradition" of not kneeling down.
Actually there is a proud tradition of kneeling to no one. That’s why we nod to a King not bow at the waist, Obama-style.
Trust you to know that Charles
Although Oscar Wilde said “love is a sacrament that should be taken kneeling”
Dom Bess took five of the six wickets to fall today in Sussex’s second innings. First step on his road to England rehabilitation ?
Also Hameed made his first century since 2019....
A lot of spinners have had a good start to the season - Harmer, Crane, Parkinson, Leach, Critchley. Not the green seaming wickets everyone expects with such an early start, but it's been very dry, which must be having an effect.
There's a few other English openers who are doing well - Libby has caught a few people's notice, and Lyth and Robson again - just in this case not including the players most recently who have opened for the Test team.
Having all the matches available to watch through the ECB website has been amazing.
Comments
It's why he's the ultimate election winner
Vaccine passports, lockdowns, vaccines themselves. All part of Bill Gates' plandemic innit.
My kids have always had different racial toys (Doc McStuffins was one of their first dolls).
I don't even know what the law is on the subject as of now.
The problem is people trying to fit data to theories.
The numbers dying match up pretty well with the hospital admissions. Both are in a "long tail", slowly descending.
As to why that is - well, a bunch of people are getting sick with COVID and dying of it.
The data I would like to see, is the vaccination status of those admitted and dying of COVID. This would tell us how much the reduced rates are due to vaccination and how much due to lockdown. All we can say, otherwise - both have an effect.
The dashboard folk have told me that they haven't been given that data. So there we are rather stuck.
It hasn't quite happened yet, but it's been close and it will happen.
At some point in the next decade. I just don't know when.
May 17th is only just over three weeks away, so we are now treating that as freedom day. Day trips out of town and starting back at the gym will resume from then. We're also starting to think about parental visits and a holiday (in England) later in the year.
Weather today best so far this year, went out to lunch with friends we've not seen for a long time, out again for Sunday roast tomorrow. I still won't believe that social distancing and evil masks are buried until it happens, but that aside it feels like this bloody torment is, finally, almost at an end.
--AS
And they just don't care, how terribly sad that is for all of us.
Tory lead up.
Given that R is quite stable - based on the hospital admissions -
I can see why remaining with the plan is attractive. Among other things, by May 17th, the numbers *fully vaccinated* will be interesting....
From the 80s girls cartoons like Care Bears, Gummy Bears and My Little Pony all had non-white characters. 😉
More non-white dolls should be made if there is commercial demand. And, if not, then they shouldn’t.
And yet the Tories continue to lead.
Ergo, the voters don't give a toss. Depressing.
The 37% saying he is are probably Labour/SNP and other partisans.
Germany was returning to normal last summer. Then Covid-19 surged.
By German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Apr 21, 2021, 7:00am EDT"
https://www.vox.com/22352348/germany-covid-19-coronavirus-pandemic
So no, it's not that most people think BoJo isn't corrupt, I am sure the Tories will explain these numbers away
In relation to claims that the billionaire businessman James Dyson and Johnson exchanged texts about tax arrangements for Dyson’s staff involved in the supply of ventilators, some 70% of people said it was unacceptable for the CEO of a large, well-known business to send a text to the prime minister to persuade him to maintain or introduce favourable tax arrangements for his company.
And it seems clear from what we have heard, that the various experts said that closing the borders wasn't medically effective.
What is there to explain? There are always opposition partisans willing to attack their opponents.
Unless you think the Tories make up 63% of people, the more non-partisan response is the public do not think it.
Might want to check your notes on betting against Livingstone. Livingstone was polling in the lead and the heavy odds on favourite at the start of 2008.
Livingstone was discredited by losing to Boris. Boris made him discredited.
Blair is very much my man, he's Labour and he won three elections, we should listen to him.
I wonder what he was referring to?
This is embarrassing.
In 1997 the Tories were claiming a Labour government would mean a return to the Winter of Discontent.
In 1959 Macmillan campaigned on Labour having failed to get rid of rationing by 1951.
In 1951 Bevan was still using the threat of high unemployment in 1932 as a reason not to vote Tory.
So I am afraid you are being a bit optimistic in expecting politicians to own up for their own shite record.
(A particularly egregious example was David Mellor, who in 1993 said he thought, Black Wednesday notwithstanding, that the Tories’ record compared favourably to that of the Asquith government. Which was true, but somewhat irrelevant.)
The fact is "taking the knee" is just as much a symbol of submission in the US as it is in the UK.
Anyway you are responsive to a point I wasn’t making.
100% - 37% = 63%
If they were so spectacularly wrong on such an easy point, how can we trust their judgement on anything?
More people think BoJo is corrupt than don't, end of story.
I knew the usual suspects would find a way to explain this away, not actually address the point.
Now I must go, I am off out for dinner.
If 37% think he's corrupt then 63% don't think he is. Don't know belongs to don't.
EDIT: And it looks like that Tweet has now been deleted too. So you've not only gotten the wrong end of the stick but possibly gone running off dodgy data.
The answer is, I don't know. I don't have enough knowledge to say whether closing the borders would have made a difference.
Given that Vietnam's experience with COVID - low cases, hospitalisations and deaths - has been replicated in countries that didn't close borders... it just tells me that I don't know.
The more I look at the data on COVID, the more inconsistent much of it is - low effects in some countries and then followed by disaster, more recently. There are effects here that I don't understand. Which is what makes it interesting...
But even when you exclude them, what about the massive variations in admissions/death ratios? The ebbs and flows of cases? There is so much here that we don't know. Lots of science to be done.
YouGov had Boris Johnson ahead of Ken Livingstone consistently from February 2008. Some other pollsters offered different outcomes but YouGov had it nailed from some way out.
The 5-way polling and direct Boris vs Ken polling showed Johnson ahead for much of the time.
So why do we still have masks in schools? Because a few medics like feeling powerful and a few disgraced politicians like Williamson, Gibb and Swinney indulge them because the unions, with equal folly, believe that it will make everyone safer and have unfortunately conned too many of their members into thinking that. Never mind how uncomfortable they are for children, or how difficult it makes my life as a deaf teacher, or how ineffectual they are. Heck, it’s actually illegal to make masks mandatory for those reasons, which is why they’ve made it an ‘advisory’ and forced schools to police it with tight guidelines.
Such people are scum, not experts. Their opinions should be treated with contempt.
And no, contrarian has not hacked my account and he’s still a lying, selfish twat.
Edit - and the point about Vietnam is that their quarantine is the only rational explanation for the disease not having run riot, given their climate, dwelling accommodation and proximity to China.
First step on his road to England rehabilitation ?
Also Hameed made his first century since 2019....
Livingstone was also in the lead November and December 2007 with YouGov.
So it's really not reasonable to suggest Livingstone was discredited in 2008 when Boris was behind him originally in the polls. Maybe Livingstone was discredited by February or once Boris was done with him, but that's a different matter.
The lobbying scandal rotates around David Cameron and civil servants
On the Dyson tax issue he requested that his staff working in the UK beyond 90 days were not penalised and exceptions were granted due to the crisis to all the contractors who were in a similar position Did the polling explain this detail properly
The attack by Cummings on Boris is coming from a source who has trashed his own reputation and integrity
And details of Boris being a chancer, unreliable, dishonest and having a chaotic private life are already accepted and he has a unique ability to attract the red wall voters by being himself, not pretending he loves the flag or is patriotic, as that is in his dna and he has succeeded with the vaccine rollout, opening up the economy, slaying the ESL, and being someone lotd of people would enjoy a pint with
This contradiction causes his opponents to cry in despair with no real way of genuinely responding, other than to cry foul while Boris just continues on his way
It would be foolish to underestimate the teflon nature of Boris, but someday he will be removed, but that looks quite sometime away
“There are rumours he (Cummings) has audio recordings.”
via the all-seeing @ShippersUnbound
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/war-with-dominic-cummings-leaves-johnson-on-a-political-tightrope-j58clkdxj
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 44% (-1)
LAB: 33% (-3)
LDEM: 7% (+1)
GRN: 5% (+1)
via
@OpiniumResearch
, 21 - 23 Apr
Chgs. w/ 09 Apr
Turning it up to 11...
At each stage people make their own judgements of what is possible and/or risky or not, and then decide on what restrictions they think everyone else ought to live under.
All this is true but he has an 11% lead and is popular irrespective of all the allegations which seem to be baked in to public attitudes
As Mike implies Starmer has gone from looking competent at first to being, well a bit rubbish. I honestly think Labour would be closer in the polls under Corbyn right now.
Hants already looking for my money favourites for the title. They’ve always had the bowling, but this year the batting is just beyond belief. Every time they go to the crease they seem to rattle off 450.
That is, civil servants were appalled that in the case
- Minster say "do A"
- Civil servant does "B" - without informing the minister first
- Minster says that he will name the civil servant who did "B" and deny responsibility for his/her actions.
Apparently this is a shocking breach of responsibility.
There is a long tradition of this kind of comedy. Before the Falklands war, an MI6 officer in Argentina tried to raise an alarm about certain preparations he saw. The mandarins in the Foreign Office demanded that his reports he suppressed and he be disciplined - for upsetting *their* policies....
Almost as if he is able to discredit people in comparison.
Labour have been out canvassing in East Ham Central for a by-election. As they are defending a seat they won with 86% of the vote, I can't see they've much to worry about. The Governance Referendum in Newham is much more interesting - I'm happy to see Councillor Fiaz's Mayoral powers cut back but concerned this is a front for a pro-Momentum take over of Newham Council and the election of a very radical Cabinet.
We have no Opposition - the 35% who didn't vote Labour in 2018 (whether Conservative, LD, Green or whatever) have no representation at all. It's an internal Labour factional issue into which we have all been dragged.
If you want to know why I support PR, that's why and I would say exactly the same if it were an LD council with 100% of the seats on 65% of the vote (or indeed a Conservative one).
I find the argument for PR at local elections overwhelming - it wouldn't stop Labour having a majority in Newham but there would be a group of 18 Opposition councillors who would at least ensure other voices are heard,
As an aside, the latest London Mayoral poll as follows:
Khan (LAB-S&D): 47% (-3)
Bailey (CON-ECR): 26% (+1)
Porritt (LDEM-RE): 9% (+1)
Berry (GPEW-G/EFA): 6%
Of the others, Mandu Reid of the Women's Equality Party has 4% which means, if I have this right, the remaining candidates fighting over 8% of the vote - like so many bald individuals over a comb.
From the Tories.
Pack of lies.
In line with my newfound Green credentials, I composted it.
In curling, competitors take a knee as they send their stone.
Do you also have to take a knee in some categories of shooting?
Russell Grant?
In any normal cycle and with a pandemic, all oppositions, not least Labour, should be making hay and they are not
I have expressed my views over the last few days and to be honest I don't have an answer on how Labour square the metropolitan elite with the red wall voters
There's a few other English openers who are doing well - Libby has caught a few people's notice, and Lyth and Robson again - just in this case not including the players most recently who have opened for the Test team.
Having all the matches available to watch through the ECB website has been amazing.
(I would say the only thing Cummings plays with effectively and on a regular basis is his Johnson.)