Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Tories into 39 with another pollster. Down down down
Labours Lexit glass ceiling. Stuck stuck stuck.
Labour down on that as well. They are just going nowhere
Why should they go anywhere? They lost squillions of long serving votes to the Tories and are doing ZILCH, NIHIL, ABSOLUTELY NOWT to convince them to come back. If the government is rubbish (the last couple weeks they have been brilliant at protecting their 2019 voters) the worst that will happen is the voters Torys will keep again at the next election will merely go shy as don’t knows for mid term.
The disastrous position Labour find themselves in they need to be very very active at showing a government in waiting.
This is what the lost voters need to see for starters:
1. The leadership needs to show it has killer instinct the public are looking for, Starmer needs to put some underperforming heads on spikes ASAP - starting with Angela Rayner, Ashworth, Griffith, Smith.
2. Starmer needs to put poster boy of Remain and 2nd ref behind him, Starmer needs to communicate to the Lexits how he is going to build on the success of Brexit to level up their community and bring the good old days back. If he doesn’t do that he doesn’t get the vote back in the places he needs it.
Says Gove possibly to Housing to sort out the mess - but what's the point? It takes about a year for government to come up with plans, circulate them, see the reaction and then drop it, and ultimately the Shires don't want any solution to housing that might be proposed.
Also, what the heck is this?
Most think Raab looks nailed on for a move to the Cabinet Office. His eye for granular detail seen as better suited there than FCDO.
Not sure whether the love for Patel is as strong as you think:
Last week I placed bets on an outsider pick, Penny Mordaunt, for next leader @ 42 with BF and Smarkets. I'm also on Javid at a good price and Truss at 100/1. And Sunak at 250/1 for next PM, some of it hedged now.
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Starmer isn't that kind of leader.
What about Gaitskell in mid-1961? It was far from obvious that Thatcher was going to win from Autumn 1977 until the Winter of Discontent at the beginning of 1979. Had Harold Wilson still been Labour's leader rather than the hopeless Callaghan, I doubt that she would have entered No 10.
Other interesting what-ifs;
Had Gaitskell not died, would he have won in 1964? Had Smith not died, would he have won in 1997?
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
It doesn't but its slightly dishonest to say that the real tax rate is 75% on say 11K earnings, because it isn't. It might be on the extra income, but I believe earning money is better than having it topped up by government, where possible.
It is the real marginal tax rate.
We always talk about tax rates at the marginal amount for good reason. If someone is earning £51,000 then would you say looking at income tax alone that they're on the 40% tax rate, or that they're on 15.35% tax?
And if you believe (as I do) that earning money is better then why the hell would you want to discourage anyone from working with a 75% real tax rate?
Now we have Kim Leadbeater asking a question. Elected 1st July. And Anum Qaisar-Javed asking a question. Elected 13th May. Meanwhile the MP for Hartlepool elected 6th May has made no speeches. Asked no verbal or written questions. Has done literally nothing.
This is a problem for the Tories. It is no good winning the red wall and then doing nothing. They need to act.
On the other had Labour the most useless MP of modern times in Jared O'Mara and still won that seat again.
Granted he'd jumped ship and didn't rest and but voters didn't blame the party for him.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
In fairness, you don't recall the exact rationale because there was none. The only thing thing I can think of is that in March 2020 HMG were worried lost of new UC claimaints would suddenly realise how crap the UC rates are.
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Yes but there are serious disadvantages to coming off TCs to UCs. I have wondered whether this is partly a ploy to get people to do just that. You are barred from ever switching back.
The main disadvantage is that UC is means tested against wealth whereas TCs are not. So over £16k in savings or investments and you would qualify for nil UCs and be barred from correcting your mistake by not being allowed to switch back to TCs.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
Tories into 39 with another pollster. Down down down
Labours Lexit glass ceiling. Stuck stuck stuck.
Labour down on that as well. They are just going nowhere
Why should they go anywhere? They lost squillions of long serving votes to the Tories and are doing ZILCH, NIHIL, ABSOLUTELY NOWT to convince them to come back. If the government is rubbish (the last couple weeks they have been brilliant at protecting their 2019 voters) the worst that will happen is the voters Torys will keep again at the next election will merely go shy as don’t knows for mid term.
The disastrous position Labour find themselves in they need to be very very active at showing a government in waiting.
This is what the lost voters need to see for starters:
1. The leadership needs to show it has killer instinct the public are looking for, Starmer needs to put some underperforming heads on spikes ASAP - starting with Angela Rayner, Ashworth, Griffith, Smith.
2. Starmer needs to put poster boy of Remain and 2nd ref behind him, Starmer needs to communicate to the Lexits how he is going to build on the success of Brexit to level up their community and bring the good old days back. If he doesn’t do that he doesn’t get the vote back in the places he needs it.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
It doesn't but its slightly dishonest to say that the real tax rate is 75% on say 11K earnings, because it isn't. It might be on the extra income, but I believe earning money is better than having it topped up by government, where possible.
OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
Now we have Kim Leadbeater asking a question. Elected 1st July. And Anum Qaisar-Javed asking a question. Elected 13th May. Meanwhile the MP for Hartlepool elected 6th May has made no speeches. Asked no verbal or written questions. Has done literally nothing.
This is a problem for the Tories. It is no good winning the red wall and then doing nothing. They need to act.
I'd imagine the percentage of the electorate even aware of their MPs parliamentary questions is <10%, let alone those who switch votes based on them.
Tories into 39 with another pollster. Down down down
Labours Lexit glass ceiling. Stuck stuck stuck.
Labour down on that as well. They are just going nowhere
Why should they go anywhere? They lost squillions of long serving votes to the Tories and are doing ZILCH, NIHIL, ABSOLUTELY NOWT to convince them to come back. If the government is rubbish (the last couple weeks they have been brilliant at protecting their 2019 voters) the worst that will happen is the voters Torys will keep again at the next election will merely go shy as don’t knows for mid term.
The disastrous position Labour find themselves in they need to be very very active at showing a government in waiting.
This is what the lost voters need to see for starters:
1. The leadership needs to show it has killer instinct the public are looking for, Starmer needs to put some underperforming heads on spikes ASAP - starting with Angela Rayner, Ashworth, Griffith, Smith.
2. Starmer needs to put poster boy of Remain and 2nd ref behind him, Starmer needs to communicate to the Lexits how he is going to build on the success of Brexit to level up their community and bring the good old days back. If he doesn’t do that he doesn’t get the vote back in the places he needs it.
Tories into 39 with another pollster. Down down down
Labours Lexit glass ceiling. Stuck stuck stuck.
Labour down on that as well. They are just going nowhere
Why should they go anywhere? They lost squillions of long serving votes to the Tories and are doing ZILCH, NIHIL, ABSOLUTELY NOWT to convince them to come back. If the government is rubbish (the last couple weeks they have been brilliant at protecting their 2019 voters) the worst that will happen is the voters Torys will keep again at the next election will merely go shy as don’t knows for mid term.
The disastrous position Labour find themselves in they need to be very very active at showing a government in waiting.
This is what the lost voters need to see for starters:
1. The leadership needs to show it has killer instinct the public are looking for, Starmer needs to put some underperforming heads on spikes ASAP - starting with Angela Rayner, Ashworth, Griffith, Smith.
2. Starmer needs to put poster boy of Remain and 2nd ref behind him, Starmer needs to communicate to the Lexits how he is going to build on the success of Brexit to level up their community and bring the good old days back. If he doesn’t do that he doesn’t get the vote back in the places he needs it.
Should he have taken bereavement leave today if he had not been able to prepare for PMQs after his Mother's passing?
The answer is yes but it seems a cabinet reshuffle today is something he has decided to do
He shouldn't be judged for not taking time just as he shouldn't be judged if he had taken time, but if you're on the job you will be judged on performance regardless of other circumstances.
Well done Starmer for concentrating on high taxes preventing people from working, instead of just calling for more money for everything.
Maybe Labour could tackle the tax issues and become a party of lower taxes for working people? If they do, they'd win my vote, but I won't be holding my breath.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
To be fair he's quoted lines I've been using here for a long time. Some of his attack lines could have been lifted straight from my thread header the other day. So I may not be impartial. 😉
I am sure Starmer pops on here
Has anyone ever seen Keir and Philip in the same room?
- Both agreed with Boris a lot during the pandemic - Both strongly supported a hard Brexit (see Starmer's actions as shadow Brexit sec) - Both are rightly upset about real marginal tax rates on the low paid and even use the same attack lines - Both were glad to see the back of Corbyn - Both are forensic arguers that seem to rely on grinding down their opponents, while everyone else gets a bit bored
Why can't I be Keir Starmer? Although I'm also a golfer, from memory
You can be whoever you want to be, CHB!
I do see the parallels - outwardly supportive of Corbyn before the 2019 election and bullish about Labour's chances, only to ditch him rapidly thereafter
Another reference to immigration from Boris Johnson there. He is repeatedly trying to link wages and immigration, implying that Labour’s immigration policy would lead to wages falling
Raducanu had the NYSE on her NY bucket list. Might not be a lefty!
She posted a flag heavy picture, which politicians show us means she is either a populist right wing demagogue or an insecure lefty traitor to the socialist cause.
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Starmer isn't that kind of leader.
What about Gaitskell in mid-1961? It was far from obvious that Thatcher was going to win from Autumn 1977 until the Winter of Discontent at the beginning of 1979. Had Harold Wilson still been Labour's leader rather than the hopeless Callaghan, I doubt that she would have entered No 10.
Other interesting what-ifs;
Had Gaitskell not died, would he have won in 1964? Had Smith not died, would he have won in 1997?
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
Or if he’s feeling super gutsy, ennobling Rory the Tory to run the FCO.
The political career of 'Florence of belgravia' ( as he was known in basra) has run its course. National treasure status as a sort of eBay portillo possibly beckons.
I am afraid that you are missing the point. Stonewall is not a reliable source because it now has a very specific agenda, namely, to abolish sex as a protected characteristic and sex-based rights under the Equality Act. The statistics about threats of suicide amongst young people claiming to be trans have been debunked - see the recent Alex Massie article on this in the Times. The recent Sonia Appleby whistleblowing case in relation to the Tavistock Centre and how it deals with children is well worth a read, not least because it sheds light on some of the very dubious behaviour of organisations like Mermaids. Ditto the Keira Bell case. The experimentation on children claiming to be dysphoric, many of whom are autistic and/or gay, using untested drugs with horrific and irreversible side effects with scarce regard for the Gillick comepetence test is an absolute scandal.
It is not simply one MP who has been attacked. There was a recent Pride March in Manchester where a gay man was attacked by the marchers and had to be escorted off by the police for his own safety. At that same march one of the marching female vicars claimed that gender ideology meant that homosexuality did not exist. Lesbians have been attacked - here and in France - for asserting that same sex attraction is real and that men with penises are not women or lesbians no matter what they say or feel. There is an undeniable homophobic element to the gender ideology movement because it denies that sex matters, one reason why lesbians and some gay people have founded their own separate organisation because they no longer feel that Stonewall represents their interests. In the recent London Pride march there were banners calling for JK Rowling to be killed with no action taken. In the US a man walked into a spa naked with an erect penis and claimed to be trans. In fact it turned out he was a sexual predator with a history of offending who has now been charged. When the story first came out the pro-trans lobby attacked the women who complained accusing them of fascism and a whole load besides but have been very silent when the facts since came out. In Scotland the male trans head of a rape charity has stated that rape victims need to be "cleansed" of their transphobic views before accessing the charity's services. Just pause on that - women who have been attacked by men need to be cleansed of their views because they must be transphobic if they do not want a male counsellor to help them through their trauma. A woman asking about the single sex exemptions under the Equality Act was thrown out of the meeting.
Manchester. The man turned up to a pro-trans event in anti-trans tee shirt. He was jeered and had his hat nicked. Not great but hardly as presented. And both sides are guilty of abusing stats. Eg the "48% of transwomen in prison are in for sex crimes" as featured on here the other day, this one should carry an enormous health warning, as is obvious when you dig into it, yet it's been used to float all sorts of prejudiced garbage. And as for homophobia you should just see some of the stuff posted by some of the more extreme anti-trans obsessives (mainly blokes of a highly unreconstructed nature). There is simply no question that these are the sort of people who would have been battling against gay (or any minority apart from bigots) rights every step of the way. They probably still would be if they hadn't latched onto this. You make some great points, cyclefree, and put them well, and we're aren't as much at odds on this issue as it might appear, when it comes to what to do in practice, but boy are you a long way from being balanced. Which is fair enough, why argue the opposite case to the one you wish to push?, but I point this out in case people on here think otherwise. They should DTOR.
He turned up to Manchester Pride in an LGB Alliance cap and shirt. LGB Alliance are not anti trans, they are pro same sex.
Indeed they are being targeted by pro trans fanatics attacking their charitable status through the courts for no better reason than to silence them.
You want bigotry. Read this.
Www.terfisaslur.com
Horrid. And I don't want bigotry. The issue is nothing like so difficult when you strip all that out. Hence I won't post you back a ton of poison from the other side.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
In fairness, you don't recall the exact rationale because there was none. The only thing thing I can think of is that in March 2020 HMG were worried lost of new UC claimaints would suddenly realise how crap the UC rates are.
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Yes but there are serious disadvantages to coming off TCs to UCs. I have wondered whether this is partly a ploy to get people to do just that. You are barred from ever switching back.
The main disadvantage is that UC is means tested against wealth whereas TCs are not. So over £16k in savings or investments and you would qualify for nil UCs and be barred from correcting your mistake by not being allowed to switch back to TCs.
Yes. You need to take advice before switching. Also. Take advice if they attempt to "migrate" you due to change of circumstances. Their definition of "change" isn't often in accordance with Case Law.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Starmer isn't that kind of leader.
What about Gaitskell in mid-1961? It was far from obvious that Thatcher was going to win from Autumn 1977 until the Winter of Discontent at the beginning of 1979. Had Harold Wilson still been Labour's leader rather than the hopeless Callaghan, I doubt that she would have entered No 10.
Other interesting what-ifs;
Had Gaitskell not died, would he have won in 1964? Had Smith not died, would he have won in 1997?
I am confident that the answer to both is 'Yes'. Many think Gaitskell would have won morecomfortably than Wilson - and no need for another election in 1966. Smith would have won easily - though not on the same scale as Blair.
Raducanu had the NYSE on her NY bucket list. Might not be a lefty!
She posted a flag heavy picture, which politicians show us means she is either a populist right wing demagogue or an insecure lefty traitor to the socialist cause.
I thought it had been established on here that she is in fact a leading light in the Bromley LDs?
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
It's not going to happen. Starmer is safer than Johnson because getting rid of him is just about impossible. There is no conceivable route to it happening. He will only go if he wants to.
Then we get 5 more years of Boris. The government looks like it wants to lose but Labour doesn't look like it wants to win.
Most mid-term governments look like they want to lose. Most of them somehow don't.
It's rarer to see an Opposition that just can't be bothered.
I am unthrilled thus far with the Starmer project, love to see more fizz and radicalism, but he has decided to play it the way he's playing it and I have a sneaky feeling it's going to work, defining that as making the next election competitive. Dec 19 was a Con landslide and since then there's been Brexit done (yay!) followed by nothing of the remotest interest to the electorate apart from Covid. There's been no public appetite for hearing either grand visions or detailed alternatives from Labour. "Shut the fuck up, can't you see there's a pandemic on and Boris is doing his best" type thing. With this backdrop, that Labour are closing the gap in the polls bodes well for them. The notion they should be miles ahead "cos it's midterm" is old chestnut bollocks that doesn't pay sufficient regard to the highly unusual circumstances.
That being said, in every mid term I can remember, where the opposition wasn't ahead, people were saying "this time it is different"
The simple truth is that the kind of winners you can spot at this stage are obvious. Thatcher, Smith and Blair had it. Cameron as well.
Starmer isn't that kind of leader.
What about Gaitskell in mid-1961?
I don't think Malmesbury was born in/before 1940?
Not quite, no.
I didn't mean that the the opposition *can't* win from here. It's just that, at this point in the election cycle, for the opposition to be a favourite, they need to have a certain kind of leader and perception of the party under that leader.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
In fairness, you don't recall the exact rationale because there was none. The only thing thing I can think of is that in March 2020 HMG were worried lost of new UC claimaints would suddenly realise how crap the UC rates are.
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Yes but there are serious disadvantages to coming off TCs to UCs. I have wondered whether this is partly a ploy to get people to do just that. You are barred from ever switching back.
The main disadvantage is that UC is means tested against wealth whereas TCs are not. So over £16k in savings or investments and you would qualify for nil UCs and be barred from correcting your mistake by not being allowed to switch back to TCs.
Yes. You need to take advice before switching. Also. Take advice if they attempt to "migrate" you due to change of circumstances. Their definition of "change" isn't often in accordance with Case Law.
That's interesting - you have a dog in this fight?
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
It doesn't but its slightly dishonest to say that the real tax rate is 75% on say 11K earnings, because it isn't. It might be on the extra income, but I believe earning money is better than having it topped up by government, where possible.
It is the real marginal tax rate.
We always talk about tax rates at the marginal amount for good reason. If someone is earning £51,000 then would you say looking at income tax alone that they're on the 40% tax rate, or that they're on 15.35% tax?
And if you believe (as I do) that earning money is better then why the hell would you want to discourage anyone from working with a 75% real tax rate?
So then call it that, not the real tax rate.
And what is your solution to this? Its not an easy question.
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
I'm a bit thick, but this is not 75% of all earnings is it? Its only on earnings above the zero tax threshold?
How does that help someone who wants to eg earn £20 or £100 extra and needs to work 9 or 50 extra hours of overtime to do so?
It doesn't but its slightly dishonest to say that the real tax rate is 75% on say 11K earnings, because it isn't. It might be on the extra income, but I believe earning money is better than having it topped up by government, where possible.
OK. Take a breath. And imagine that conversation on the doorstep between a Tory candidate with a voter in that position. "I know that you are being effectively taxed at 75% because we are taking 75p of every pound you earn. But it is not a 75% tax rate and Labour are being slightly dishonest saying that it is".
They are not being taxed at 75% though are they? And it wouldn't be 75 p of every extra pound they earn, only in a certain bracket. And my personal belief is that work should pay, not the government (i.e. the tax payer).
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
Starmer championing a £10 minimum wage yesterday was curious as I am confident by Spring 24 it will already be at the rate, if not higher
I remember periods when an increase on pay of double digits was the norm. I am sure I had somethong akin to 15% in 1980 or 1981 directly as a result of inflation.
We’ve just given a 20% pay rise to our mid-level employees
Excellent point by Starmer pointing out that the real tax rate on the low paid is over 75%
Boris just waffling unable to answer, because there is no answer.
It is incredulous that any civilised country could tax the poorest over 75%. Absolutely nobody, let alone the poorest, should face a tax rate over 50%.
To be fair, they are not being taxed at that rate, it is the marginal rate. I think they are actually still net recipients from the government, at least early in the taper?
Marginal is what matters. They are taxed that rate marginally. If someone working full time earning £9 per hour on UC paying income tax and national insurance wants to make up the £20 per week being cut and wants to work overtime to pay for that they'd need to work 45 hours over overtime every month to make that up.
Those tax rates are despicable.
I'm not sure those numbers add up. If you are working full time at £9 an hour there is no way you'd be receiving the full benefit.
Of course the numbers add up. It doesn't matter whether you're receiving the full benefit or a tapered benefit, if you're pay tax then until you're not receiving any benefit you're on an over 75% marginal tax rate.
If you're not claiming benefits you can boost your income by working overtime. If you are, you effectively can't, which effectively traps you claiming the benefits.
I think we have different definitions of “effectively”. The benefit has to be tapered by some mechanism given the way the system is currently set up.
No it doesn't, its a political choice to taper it that way. It can be merged with tax rates.
If we had a 10% taper then the real rate of taxation would be over 40% including only employee NI and income tax plus taper. Why wouldn't over 40% be enough to tax people by, why does it need to be 75%?
Yeah, but I said given the way the system is set up. We could of course completely overhaul the tax and benefits system.
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
Then make a political choice to either pay for it being more expensive, or give less money to those at the bottom. That's politics.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
To give you an idea of how absurd a 10% taper rate would be. Someone earning £2500 a week would still be a recipient of universal credit.
Since I'd advocate a 0% taper and complete merger with NI and Income Tax I don't find that remotely absurd.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
Yes, obviously the system could be completely changed.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
If it gets people off a 75% marginal tax rate and means people can be encouraged out of poverty and to work more hours or seek a pay rise instead of relying upon welfare, then yes it absolutely 100% is money well spent.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
It really isn't. You'd be spending billions on those earning well above minimum wage. The whole point of these benefits is to help those right at the bottom who need it the most, you don't do that by making almost everyone in the country eligible for it.
Well done Starmer for concentrating on high taxes preventing people from working, instead of just calling for more money for everything.
Maybe Labour could tackle the tax issues and become a party of lower taxes for working people? If they do, they'd win my vote, but I won't be holding my breath.
Might as well make a virtue of necessity. The Conservatives have got the "retired homeowner" vote sewn up, which leaves a decent bit of the battlefield open. Working people rather than working class. (Part of the 2019 triumph was advancing in some areas without really retreating anywhere, except the odd Uni town.)
Does mean giving up on bits of the Red Wall, which will be an emotional and MP-career wrench.
And younger people (as in, not counting the days to their retirement) have views on a range of issues which others will find highly uncongenial...
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
Gluttony and abstinence are both extremes.
I favour balance: sustainable rearing, and enjoyment, of meat and fish to high-welfare standards.
The reason I think you are missing the point is this. No-one denies that those people who are genuinely dysphoric need help and resources and to be free from attack and prejudice. I absolutely share your concern about this. If trans activists were genuinely concerned about this, they would be campaigning loudly for more resources for dysphoric people. But they aren't. They are focusing on attacking women who raise concerns and this comes across to women as little more than male bullying and men telling women what being a women is.
But the issue is that if you have effective self-ID with no independent objective verifiable gatekeeping of whether someone really is dysphoric then it provides a bloody great loophole for men who are not trans saying that they are in order to access and attack women. And there is plenty of evidence that sexual predators will do just that and are doing so - in prisons and elsewhere.
The other point is this: 80% of genuine transwomen do not have surgery so they remain with a male body. They have the strength and and ability of a man and there is no way of distinguishing between a man with a male body and a man who has gender dysphoria. So that is why - as a matter of safeguarding - you keep all male bodies out of women only spaces. Otherwise you can have no effective safeguarding.
If anyone can identify themselves into a category, then that category ceases to exist. And the rights based on that category - not to be discriminated against - effectively cease to exist. That is the concern women have. Womanhood is not a feeling. It is an objective biological and scientific fact and those who claim that women have penises and men have cervixes and that a man can, just like that, say he is a woman and access women's services is talking nonsense.
One final fact for you: the majority of men claiming to be trans in prisons in the U.K. at the moment are men who have been convicted of sexual offences against women and children. They were not trans when they were free and committing their offences. But they did somehow claim to be this when they got locked up. They do not have gender recognition certificates. They have not gone though any sort of transition. They have not been medically diagnosed. Odd that. And that is why women are concerned - that this is a loophole which puts them at risk, a very real risk, as the High Court recently recognised.
As this is a subject which does not interest everyone I post here the attached helpful guide - written by a woman, a teacher, a Labour Party member of long standing and married to a transwoman. So someone who knows rather more than most the realities around this topic - https://gcritical.org/introduction/.
Thanks so much for posting all this. Its one hell of an issue where as every opinion seems to generate rage from one group or another I tend to stay away. And that is despite my eldest now identifying as non-binary and in their* second relationship with a trans man.
*WTF is this "they/they're bullshit? As the person in question is not plural (or gestalt, or schizophrenic) why is the apparent pronoun for a non-binary person plural? I had no problem with the name change (as I didn't have anything to do with the birth name chosen anyway...) but the pronoun thing drives me nuts. As does the lack of a neutral alternative to son/daughter that isn't archaic like issue / progeny / offspring / scion etc
OK. Whine over.
Good God yes. "They" as use for a single person winds me right up. This predates the trans wars - from the 90s or thereabouts 'they' has been used to refer to a person whose sex you don't know, to avoid the clunky 'his or hers'. Once upon a time, we had a term for singular/gender ambiguous: it was 'his'. 'His' could mean either 'his' in its modern sense or 'his or hers'. But it fell out of favour for understandable reasons. 'It' is the gender-neutral term, but I can understand why it isn't used in this instance. Though if 'it' had historically been the term to use for 'his or hers' it wouldn't have its slightly pejorative overtones now.
I’ve noticed on LinkedIn people putting pronouns on their profiles. Someone at work even has theirs in their sig.
This is becoming increasingly common week by week.
It puts pressure on those who don't to do the same less they attract the finger of suspicion as "transphobic".
Just come off of LinkedIn?
I was on it for about 10 years - I never saw a single benefit. Cancelled my logon when they gave all the passwords away.
Almost everyone in the professional sector is now on LinkedIn. To come off it entirely limits your career development and networking potential, particularly since that's now how it's done.
Council tax going up, NI going up, income tax thresholds being frozen, jump in fuel prices, large jump in energy prices, all round price inflation, squeeze on public spending post-Covid... possibly an interest rate rise to dampen it down.
Anyone who thinks another Conservative majority is a shoe-in for 2023/2024 isn't thinking properly.
Why did Brown lose in 2010?
It wasn't because of the Financial Crash. It was because the Tories successfully pinned the blame for the financial crash onto Labour. It was a political defeat.
You paint a picture of rocky times ahead, but regardless of what I might think about Johnson's handling of the pandemic or Brexit, the Opposition would have to pin the blame on Johnson for him to suffer electorally. My sense is that people generally pin the blame on the virus, because the Opposition have failed to win the political argument.
In difficult times who will voters trust? Will they trust the politician who delivered Brexit and vaccines, as promised, to steer them through this latest crisis? Or will they trust a politician so scared of divisions within his own party that he won't tell the voters what he stands for?
Well, people certainly don't trust Boris but they do at least half-like him or are entertained by him. I think his government is shambolic and incompetent, myself, with a few bright spots of talent. It would be hugely improved by a new Conservative leader, which is why I support one.
Labour has a very similar problem. Starmer is a dud and what's keeping Boris in office at present.
Tell me if I'm being unfair, but I sense you'd say that whoever was in charge of Labour
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
Not a very good clutch if it only last 14 months
They went in different cars. The first went into 997 Targa I flipped, the second is going into my 997 Turbo if my left hand ever works again.
You'll all be delighted to know I've discovered Sticky Keys so the dark ages of lower case posting are over.
Council tax going up, NI going up, income tax thresholds being frozen, jump in fuel prices, large jump in energy prices, all round price inflation, squeeze on public spending post-Covid... possibly an interest rate rise to dampen it down.
Anyone who thinks another Conservative majority is a shoe-in for 2023/2024 isn't thinking properly.
Not sure. Talked to a few strong Tories over the weekend, post the tax rise news. The responses can be summarised as: "The pandemic has cost a fortune - of course taxes were going to rise. What did people expect".
Voters don't care about context.
If they are hit in the pocket they will blame the Government.
I don’t want to bang on, but the details of that Faroese dolphin hunt are truly distressing. Using jet skis and speedboats they pursued this huge, tiring pod of dolphins for hours. Eventually cornering them on that beach, where they were incompetently slaughtered by fools. Some taking ages to die
One thousand five hundred dolphins
I can understand why a poor, primitive society might need to hunt cetaceans to get by. The Faroese are enormously rich. They’re not going to starve whatever they kill. They can’t eat 1500 dolphins, anyway
So it was mass killing for the sake of mass killing. The joy of sadistic butchery. What the Hell
I don’t normally get that exercised by ‘ecological’ issues but this is horrible.
Nick Palmer! This is your job. The world needs to tell the Faroes: Stop, or else
Or else what?
Well, they have a lovely large tourist industry - relative to their size - which sells the Faroes as this amazing, unspoiled, Edenic destination. Shame if something ever happened to that industry, like a worldwide boycott ensuring its collapse
You seem to be saying that I shouldn't be allowed to go to the Faroes because you don't approve of something some people have been allowed to do. Hope I have misunderstood that.
As I said to Taz, please ignore me. But look at the photos I linked, and decide for yourself
Personally, I’ve always wanted to visit the Faroes. They are meant to be amazing. But I won’t go now, not unless they stop this shit. Personal choice, is all
Other countries do it as well, of course. Inc Japan.
See below for gut-wrenching mass slaughter of the magnificent and beautiful tuna:
I only ever eat sustainable fish, if at all possible (sometimes abroad it’s not possible to know)
The industrialized fishing of tuna is grisly, but at least the tuna are eaten. And the noble tuna is not a highly intelligent mammal like the dolphin
The pointless slaughter of 1400 dolphins for no other reason than sadistic pleasure is in a different and darker moral place
Tuna, as a species, is far more threatened than dolphins are. But I agree that slaughtering a wild mammal seems even more grisly to us than slaughtering a fish.
Loss of biodiversity is the most worrying environmental threat for me, it makes one wonder how much degradation it will take before our species stops. A rhetorical question because it never will.
Yes. Loss of biodiversity is a bleak and depressing thing. I’m a big fan of rewilding
Incidentally, last week in Lucerne I saw a sign saying ‘look out for beavers!’ - in the middle of the city
My guide explained they were reintroduced years back, and ‘now we have so many they are a problem’. But that’s a better problem than having no beavers at all
That depends on what the beavers do to everything else.
That's expected with good questions. The key is whether he looked particularly silly or under pressure in not answering it.
Well it's not a UC cut is it, as well as Starmer knows. It was a temporary measure.
Any fool knows that uplifting UC 'temporarily' would be seen as a cut if the uplift were ever removed.
What on earth were the government thinking in introducing it as a 'temporary' rise? What was the logic?
It was alongside Sunak's other pandemic support measures wasn't it? I don't recall the exact rationale but it was certainly pandemic related and not intended as a permanent rise. It is also unfair because UC recipients get it but tax credit recipients do not.
In fairness, you don't recall the exact rationale because there was none. The only thing thing I can think of is that in March 2020 HMG were worried lost of new UC claimaints would suddenly realise how crap the UC rates are.
PS anyone on tax credit can switch to UC at any time.
Yes but there are serious disadvantages to coming off TCs to UCs. I have wondered whether this is partly a ploy to get people to do just that. You are barred from ever switching back.
The main disadvantage is that UC is means tested against wealth whereas TCs are not. So over £16k in savings or investments and you would qualify for nil UCs and be barred from correcting your mistake by not being allowed to switch back to TCs.
Yes. You need to take advice before switching. Also. Take advice if they attempt to "migrate" you due to change of circumstances. Their definition of "change" isn't often in accordance with Case Law.
That's interesting - you have a dog in this fight?
Just from experience of benefits advice. That's all.
I am afraid that you are missing the point. Stonewall is not a reliable source because it now has a very specific agenda,(
Snip)
I will reply to your very first sentence.. The group you often quote data from (without the courtesy of linking to their research), could be seen as a not very reliable source because it has a very specific agenda. Do you not agree?
Energy prices going up will only sharpen attacks on the idea of the PM (or his wife) to make everyone have new, more expensive boilers.
Depends on how efficient the new boilers are vs the old boilers. If a switch to a new boiler cuts your energy consumption in half its probably a good thing. If not...
As an example in our new old house, an early investment was a new boiler. The old one drinking oil at a speldid speed if it were a supertanker engine not a boiler. We've then looked for energy efficiency investments we could make - new windows was high on the list. But as the bill for new windows is £60k, we would have to save spectacular amounts of oil to make it worth the money...
That's some house !
What was the cost per sqm of new window, if I can ask?
SageGlass?
(It has to be said, you do not normally start with the windows unless they are single glazed.)
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Not true.
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct. And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits want to see and hear.
If Starmer repeated Kinnock's 1992 performance in twenty years he'd be known as the man who saved Labour. 1992 setup the 1997 landslide.
No. That’s bizarre reflection on 92 & 7.
No. Sadly, you are a messenger shooter.
There was a difference in what Blair done 94 to 97 and Kinnock 97-92. Politics is about being relentlessly aggressive for every vote.
To use a PB maxim, the poster you don’t like is the poster posting what you don’t like. Doesn’t mean they are not on side or wrong.
Labour are not moving up in polls. Fact. I’m sure I will be proved right, it’s Lexit problem, lost to Tories over Brexit, If Labour don’t pull out all stops between now and the election to get Lexit back, they put on no more than paltry 25 seats.
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Not true.
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct. And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits want to see and hear.
If Starmer repeated Kinnock's 1992 performance in twenty years he'd be known as the man who saved Labour. 1992 setup the 1997 landslide.
No. That’s bizarre reflection on 92 & 7.
No. Sadly, you are a messenger shooter.
There was a difference in what Blair done 94 to 97 and Kinnock 97-92. Politics is about being relentlessly aggressive for every vote.
To use a PB maxim, the poster you don’t like is the poster posting what you don’t like. Doesn’t mean they are not on side or wrong.
Labour are not moving up in polls. Fact. I’m sure I will be proved right, it’s Lexit problem, lost to Tories over Brexit, If Labour don’t pull out all stops between now and the election to get Lexit back, they put on no more than paltry 25 seats.
CHB sees the world through a highly partisan lens, and assumes everyone else is the same.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
For how many other Greens, is buying a new clutch every 15 months a problem?
There’s only one reason a clutch lasts 15 months, and that’s if you’re tracking the hell out of it!
I am afraid that you are missing the point. Stonewall is not a reliable source because it now has a very specific agenda, namely, to abolish sex as a protected characteristic and sex-based rights under the Equality Act. The statistics about threats of suicide amongst young people claiming to be trans have been debunked - see the recent Alex Massie article on this in the Times. The recent Sonia Appleby whistleblowing case in relation to the Tavistock Centre and how it deals with children is well worth a read, not least because it sheds light on some of the very dubious behaviour of organisations like Mermaids. Ditto the Keira Bell case. The experimentation on children claiming to be dysphoric, many of whom are autistic and/or gay, using untested drugs with horrific and irreversible side effects with scarce regard for the Gillick comepetence test is an absolute scandal.
It is not simply one MP who has been attacked. There was a recent Pride March in Manchester where a gay man was attacked by the marchers and had to be escorted off by the police for his own safety. At that same march one of the marching female vicars claimed that gender ideology meant that homosexuality did not exist. Lesbians have been attacked - here and in France - for asserting that same sex attraction is real and that men with penises are not women or lesbians no matter what they say or feel. There is an undeniable homophobic element to the gender ideology movement because it denies that sex matters, one reason why lesbians and some gay people have founded their own separate organisation because they no longer feel that Stonewall represents their interests. In the recent London Pride march there were banners calling for JK Rowling to be killed with no action taken. In the US a man walked into a spa naked with an erect penis and claimed to be trans. In fact it turned out he was a sexual predator with a history of offending who has now been charged. When the story first came out the pro-trans lobby attacked the women who complained accusing them of fascism and a whole load besides but have been very silent when the facts since came out. In Scotland the male trans head of a rape charity has stated that rape victims need to be "cleansed" of their transphobic views before accessing the charity's services. Just pause on that - women who have been attacked by men need to be cleansed of their views because they must be transphobic if they do not want a male counsellor to help them through their trauma. A woman asking about the single sex exemptions under the Equality Act was thrown out of the meeting.
Manchester. The man turned up to a pro-trans event in anti-trans tee shirt. He was jeered and had his hat nicked. Not great but hardly as presented. And both sides are guilty of abusing stats. Eg the "48% of transwomen in prison are in for sex crimes" as featured on here the other day, this one should carry an enormous health warning, as is obvious when you dig into it, yet it's been used to float all sorts of prejudiced garbage. And as for homophobia you should just see some of the stuff posted by some of the more extreme anti-trans obsessives (mainly blokes of a highly unreconstructed nature). There is simply no question that these are the sort of people who would have been battling against gay (or any minority apart from bigots) rights every step of the way. They probably still would be if they hadn't latched onto this. You make some great points, cyclefree, and put them well, and we're aren't as much at odds on this issue as it might appear, when it comes to what to do in practice, but boy are you a long way from being balanced. Which is fair enough, why argue the opposite case to the one you wish to push?, but I point this out in case people on here think otherwise. They should DTOR.
The guy in Manchester did not turn up in anti-trans T-shirt. He was wearing a Lesbian and Gay Alliance hat. As Taz has pointed out, that charity has been set up by gay people who are the target of trans activists who say that lesbians are being transphobic because they do not want to have sex with men with penises.
Perhaps you might ask yourself whether it is acceptable to have a man shout witch at a woman protesting quietly outside Holyrood in the manner shown here. (https://youtu.be/1i3cG2w9O80) Or for a lesbian Pride march in Bordeaux to be attacked by a man with a flamethrower. Or for lesbians who do not subscribe to Stonewall's orthodoxy to be shunned by the Labour Party.
The 48% statistic you mention comes from the Ministry of Justice. If you have an issue with it perhaps you could clarify what it is and take it up with them.
Let me set out the details of the sorts of people I am talking about (all of them male, all of them claiming to be women) and the offences for which they have been convicted:-
- Jessica Brennan: multiple sexual offences against 4 young girls - Rachel Newton: multiple sexual offences against a child - Anna McCone: downloading and distributing indecent images of children - Melissa Wilson: possessing indecent images of children - Michelle Winter: Rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm - Rachelle Mikhnevich: assault and racially aggravated public disorder.
Women are supposed to accept men like this in female only spaces, are they? We are supposed to take the risk, are we? Come off it.
Let's look at the money trail as well. A pharmaceutical company -Ferring Pharmaceuticals - which makes a puberty blocking drug has donated £100,000 to the Lib Dems, who have a policy of wanting to amend the GRA to remove any requirement at all for a medical diagnosis. Read the Keira Bell judgment and you will see how little research there has been into these drugs and their effects. This is another opioid-style scandal in the making.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
Council tax going up, NI going up, income tax thresholds being frozen, jump in fuel prices, large jump in energy prices, all round price inflation, squeeze on public spending post-Covid... possibly an interest rate rise to dampen it down.
Anyone who thinks another Conservative majority is a shoe-in for 2023/2024 isn't thinking properly.
Why did Brown lose in 2010?
It wasn't because of the Financial Crash. It was because the Tories successfully pinned the blame for the financial crash onto Labour. It was a political defeat.
You paint a picture of rocky times ahead, but regardless of what I might think about Johnson's handling of the pandemic or Brexit, the Opposition would have to pin the blame on Johnson for him to suffer electorally. My sense is that people generally pin the blame on the virus, because the Opposition have failed to win the political argument.
In difficult times who will voters trust? Will they trust the politician who delivered Brexit and vaccines, as promised, to steer them through this latest crisis? Or will they trust a politician so scared of divisions within his own party that he won't tell the voters what he stands for?
Well, people certainly don't trust Boris but they do at least half-like him or are entertained by him. I think his government is shambolic and incompetent, myself, with a few bright spots of talent. It would be hugely improved by a new Conservative leader, which is why I support one.
Labour has a very similar problem. Starmer is a dud and what's keeping Boris in office at present.
Tell me if I'm being unfair, but I sense you'd say that whoever was in charge of Labour
You're being unfair.
The you presumably have someone in mind you think would be a good Labour leader?
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Inflation at 3.2% in August, largest rise on record
Its certainly not the largest rise on record.. it might be the largest rise in one month?
RPI inflation rate is now 5%.
something is going on because everything is getting as expensive as shit very quickly. i bought a clutch this for week for £510 and i thought, fuck me that's pricey. i checked my records and i bought the exact same thing for £384 in july 2020!
Not a very good clutch if it only last 14 months
Depends on the mileage and the aggression factor of the driving.
Tories down but Labour making no progress. It's time to get rid of Starmer and get Andy Burnham or Ed Balls a safe seat.
The King of the North and the Gangnam King really are not the future, and as a Conservative supporter you know either would just be further advantage to Johnson.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
I am a man but could not agree with this more. The problem with the Trans lobby is that they contend that their rights to equality trump the rights of women to women's spaces and protection. It just doesn't. I have absolutely no problem with a trans person living as a woman, good luck to them. I would resist fiercely any prejudice or bigotry directed towards them. That is unacceptable. But their right to identify themselves as women do not trump the rights of women to be safe. They can choose their gender but they cannot choose their sex.
Indeed. Perhaps that makes me a bigot these days, and bedfellows with some unpleasant folks (as is the case with lots of issues) but I just have problems with certain positions pushed impinging on the rights of others, and the pro side dont seem to think there's even a debate about competing rights, that it's a binary decision are you with us or against us. I think it's more complex.
Hearing that Boris Johnson will reshuffle his top team after PMQs.
A senior Tory MP tells me the rumoured moves are:
- Gove to Foreign Office - Dowden to Education - Gavin Williamson to Northern Ireland - Nigel Adams (poss) to DCMS - Simon Hart out, Craig Williams in Wales
If @Philip_Thompson praises Starmer, he's done a good job I reckon
Praise from Libertarian Pirate better than praise from me? Really?
Every post you make is "Starmer is crap", which is a fair enough point of view but let's be honest, nothing Starmer says or does will ever be acceptable for you.
Not true.
I am spelling out what he needs to do to be a winner rather than loser.
I’m not trying to hurt him, or you. I’m trying to wake you up.
There’s a reason why the last YM episode before YPM was called the killer instinct. And in 92 Labour thought they were on course for getting the seats back, so Kinnock was sent into his greenhouse. They should have been doing more for longer. And exactly what do I mean?
What do the Lexits want to see and hear.
If Starmer repeated Kinnock's 1992 performance in twenty years he'd be known as the man who saved Labour. 1992 setup the 1997 landslide.
No. That’s bizarre reflection on 92 & 7.
No. Sadly, you are a messenger shooter.
There was a difference in what Blair done 94 to 97 and Kinnock 97-92. Politics is about being relentlessly aggressive for every vote.
To use a PB maxim, the poster you don’t like is the poster posting what you don’t like. Doesn’t mean they are not on side or wrong.
Labour are not moving up in polls. Fact. I’m sure I will be proved right, it’s Lexit problem, lost to Tories over Brexit, If Labour don’t pull out all stops between now and the election to get Lexit back, they put on no more than paltry 25 seats.
CHB sees the world through a highly partisan lens, and assumes everyone else is the same.
That’s not such a problem with me, I’m probably much the same. It’s his and other Labour supporters relentless positivity and straw clutching in face of a dire crisis, rather than relentless on message aggression to get out the dire crisis, that defines the problem.
The message? That starts at the top, Starmer etc. What the fuck is the message?
Comments
If we had a 10% taper rate then it’s either be way more expensive, or less money would be given to those at the bottom.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/08/sunak-leads-our-first-next-tory-leader-survey-in-two-years.html
Last week I placed bets on an outsider pick, Penny Mordaunt, for next leader @ 42 with BF and Smarkets. I'm also on Javid at a good price and Truss at 100/1. And Sunak at 250/1 for next PM, some of it hedged now.
Very happy overall.
Had Gaitskell not died, would he have won in 1964?
Had Smith not died, would he have won in 1997?
We always talk about tax rates at the marginal amount for good reason. If someone is earning £51,000 then would you say looking at income tax alone that they're on the 40% tax rate, or that they're on 15.35% tax?
And if you believe (as I do) that earning money is better then why the hell would you want to discourage anyone from working with a 75% real tax rate?
E
I
R
FFS.
Granted he'd jumped ship and didn't rest and but voters didn't blame the party for him.
The main disadvantage is that UC is means tested against wealth whereas TCs are not. So over £16k in savings or investments and you would qualify for nil UCs and be barred from correcting your mistake by not being allowed to switch back to TCs.
But for those working it'd be better if they're able to keep more of what they earn, instead of being trapped on massive real tax rates which prevents people from earning more for themselves?
The dirty jokes write themselves.
A meeting without Coffey?
Maybe Labour could tackle the tax issues and become a party of lower taxes for working people? If they do, they'd win my vote, but I won't be holding my breath.
I do see the parallels - outwardly supportive of Corbyn before the 2019 election and bullish about Labour's chances, only to ditch him rapidly thereafter
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1438106059311390731?s=20
Mind you, the NYSE wouldn’t be on my bucket list.
What could possibly go wrong? 😂
Sackings to take place in PM office behind the speakers chair now and then the winners will walk up Downing Street later this pm
You want to not be treated like children or get stuck with crappy ministers? Then grow up and we'll move him.
It is much less absurd than trapping people on poverty with a 75% marginal tax rate.
I didn't mean that the the opposition *can't* win from here. It's just that, at this point in the election cycle, for the opposition to be a favourite, they need to have a certain kind of leader and perception of the party under that leader.
My point is there has to be some rate at which the benefits are withdrawn in the current system. Prior to universal credit there was a near 100% marginal rate. And the taper rate is very sensitive, lower it to 50% and you still have people earning £26k a year receiving benefit. That's not money well spent.
And what is your solution to this? Its not an easy question.
There's a reason we don't tax anyone else 75% marginal tax rates.
Only let me have £8.41 though.
Does mean giving up on bits of the Red Wall, which will be an emotional and MP-career wrench.
And younger people (as in, not counting the days to their retirement) have views on a range of issues which others will find highly uncongenial...
I favour balance: sustainable rearing, and enjoyment, of meat and fish to high-welfare standards.
However, I do try and sup with a long spoon.
You'll all be delighted to know I've discovered Sticky Keys so the dark ages of lower case posting are over.
If they are hit in the pocket they will blame the Government.
See UK / deer.
What was the cost per sqm of new window, if I can ask?
SageGlass?
(It has to be said, you do not normally start with the windows unless they are single glazed.)
No. Sadly, you are a messenger shooter.
There was a difference in what Blair done 94 to 97 and Kinnock 97-92. Politics is about being relentlessly aggressive for every vote.
To use a PB maxim, the poster you don’t like is the poster posting what you don’t like. Doesn’t mean they are not on side or wrong.
Labour are not moving up in polls. Fact.
I’m sure I will be proved right, it’s Lexit problem, lost to Tories over Brexit,
If Labour don’t pull out all stops between now and the election to get Lexit back, they put on no more than paltry 25 seats.
There’s only one reason a clutch lasts 15 months, and that’s if you’re tracking the hell out of it!
Perhaps you might ask yourself whether it is acceptable to have a man shout witch at a woman protesting quietly outside Holyrood in the manner shown here. (https://youtu.be/1i3cG2w9O80) Or for a lesbian Pride march in Bordeaux to be attacked by a man with a flamethrower. Or for lesbians who do not subscribe to Stonewall's orthodoxy to be shunned by the Labour Party.
The 48% statistic you mention comes from the Ministry of Justice. If you have an issue with it perhaps you could clarify what it is and take it up with them.
Let me set out the details of the sorts of people I am talking about (all of them male, all of them claiming to be women) and the offences for which they have been convicted:-
- Jessica Brennan: multiple sexual offences against 4 young girls
- Rachel Newton: multiple sexual offences against a child
- Anna McCone: downloading and distributing indecent images of children
- Melissa Wilson: possessing indecent images of children
- Michelle Winter: Rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm
- Rachelle Mikhnevich: assault and racially aggravated public disorder.
Women are supposed to accept men like this in female only spaces, are they? We are supposed to take the risk, are we? Come off it.
Do you think that an official in the Scottish prison service found guilty of possessing thousands of indecent images of children is the sort of person who should be involved in developing its transgender prison policy? (https://www.womenarehuman.com/former-prison-guard-caught-with-22000-images-of-child-porn-helped-set-scottish-trans-prisoner-rules/)
Let's look at the money trail as well. A pharmaceutical company -Ferring Pharmaceuticals - which makes a puberty blocking drug has donated £100,000 to the Lib Dems, who have a policy of wanting to amend the GRA to remove any requirement at all for a medical diagnosis. Read the Keira Bell judgment and you will see how little research there has been into these drugs and their effects. This is another opioid-style scandal in the making.
The argument is not about trans rights. The reality is that there are no legal rights which other groups have which trans people lack. Women have no issue with people with gender dysphoria getting the help, resources and kindness and care they need.
The argument is about women's rights which will be seriously harmed and diminished if the gender ideologists gets their way, gender ideologists who care little for doing anything practical for people with gender dysphoria.
One final point gender ideology is, when you think about it, based on very old-fashioned stereotypes. It assumes that if you are a "butch" girl, a tomboy you must therefore be a boy. Or that if you are a more "feminine" sort of man you must be a girl. This is of course nonsense. These are the sorts of stereotypes which feminism has tried to move away from. Quite why they should now be seen as something to be applauded let alone used as the basis for legislation and medical experimentation on children of a most gruesome kind is beyond me.
I stand for the rights of women. I stand for the rights of people who have gender dysphoria. I stand for the right of gay people whose sexuality is based on sex not on gender. I do not stand for trans activists who seek attack women and gay people and who do nothing for those with gender dysphoria.
And the reason I feel strongly about this is not just because I am a woman and a feminist. But because I have a gay child and one who went through some of the issues which some gay adolescents go through (worrying about whether he might be trans etc). He is now happily gay and probably quite a feminine sort of man. But who cares? Plus I am a trustee of a primary school and there are some very serious issues around safeguarding which are raised by this ideology.
So apologies for boring you all. But this is an important issue and one which will affect my vote. I will not vote for a party which makes self-ID part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which does not make the maintenance of women's' rights and the sex-based rights under the various Acts which women have had to fight for long and hard over decades a fundamental part of its offering. I will not vote for a party which adopts policies undermining the reality of same sex attraction. I will not vote for a party which thinks that being a woman "is an attitude". Womanhood is a reality not a "feeling".
This is a very male forum. I make no apologies for occasionally bringing a female perspective to it.
The message? That starts at the top, Starmer etc. What the fuck is the message?