My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
The whole episode has created such dissonance amongst so many commentators it has become a joy to watch the contortions. Reminds one so much of vaccinegate earlier in the year - there's a kinda quasi-sim ilarity I think.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Triple lock for wealthy retired. Triple cap for their offspring workers.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Surely the danger here is would any of the student notice/care if their teachers were MIA?
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
The EU as a whole is still the 3rd largest economy in the world after the USA and China and our largest export destination, we cannot ignore it and we cannot forget that geographically we are part of Europe still even if out of the EU.
Russia is also the 3rd most powerful military in the world still after the USA and China and geographically far closer to us than China is, it is extremely complacent to dismiss Putin, we still need NATO
Russia is in no way the third most powerful military.
They may have numbers on paper, but their kit is crap and outdated.
But they’re willing to use it And they’re extremely active in cyber-warfare and, you know, poisoning people on U.K. soil.
But one of the ways Brexiters attempt to untangle their cognitive dissonance is to maintain that Russia is no longer a threat.
Yep, if a willingness to kill people and have your own people killed is a military superpower..er..superpower, Russia is still PL while the UK is barely Championship. On the whole I think that's preferable for a middle rank country, but some folk are just itching to get in at the sharp end (as long as it's other folk feeling that sharp end naturlich).
You must be agonizing over your Sindy support now, TUD, I'm thinking. Looks like a "No" vote in the upcoming referendum (whenever it comes) will be the only way to secure Scotland's membership of Aukus.
After the revelation last week that Unionists support the BJ party because they value cooperation, this is a double body blow. I'm wavering..
Canada increasingly looking like a Clinton/Trump election. 338canada.com has it 68-31 and CBC 71-28 for Liberals most seats. (I assume the other one is a tie). So. A definite favourite. But far, far from a certainty. I, personally, would be going nearer 60-40. Neither result would surprise, let alone shock me.
It is not a Clinton Trump election, for as 2019 showed Trudeau can win even if he loses the popular vote unlike Clinton because of his strength in Ontario and especially Quebec
I meant in terms of the probabilities. And it isn't impossible, though unlikely, that the Tories could win fewer votes and more seats. Undershoot polling in Alberta, Prairies and Quebec by a few. Over in Atlantic, and Ontario by a bit, and bingo, you've done it.
Even Angus Reid, one of the few national pollsters with the Tories still ahead, has the Liberals ahead by 6% in Ontario over the Conservatives and the Liberals leading the Conservatives by 12% in Quebec so very unlikely, every poll would have to be hugely wrong at provincial level.
The Conservatives likely need to be ahead by at least 5%+ in the national popular vote to win most seats
I'm less certain. The Tories have run a clever campaign addressing their inefficiencies by targetting their message at the very places and people they need to win. But for the rise of the PPC they'd be home now, at least as far as most seats goes. But we don't know if the PPC vote exists to the polling extent, will vote, and if it does, will vote PPC. We also don't know if they are habitual non-voters, or what percentage are usual Tories. (Similar to the early days of the rise of UKIP here). There is also marginal turnout. Trudeau is hugely disliked by those who oppose him. Not hugely loved by those who don't. In particular, the NDP appears to be marginally strengthening in the last week, rather than falling away and folding into a Liberal vote. So, there is much uncertainty.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
I think our involvement is good for the US because it adds some "Anglosphere" sheen to what is essentially a big arms deal poached from France. And it works for us (or the Johnson government rather) because it makes us look a player post Brexit.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
As ever the problem is the tiny minority of criminals and loons. The further problem is that the existence of the criminals and loons ends up with having to restrict the rights of the non-criminals and non-loons.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
Even Angus Reid, one of the few national pollsters with the Tories still ahead, has the Liberals ahead by 6% in Ontario over the Conservatives and the Liberals leading the Conservatives by 12% in Quebec so very unlikely, every poll would have to be hugely wrong at provincial level.
The Conservatives likely need to be ahead by at least 5%+ in the national popular vote to win most seats
Indeed and let's not forget three quarters of the ridings are in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
Both Abacus and Mainstreet, in their daily rolling polls, have the Liberals ahead.
Abacus has the Conservatives and NDP tied in British Columbia but the Liberals seven points ahead in Ontario and ahead in Quebec.
Compared to 2019, there's a small swing from Conservatives to Liberals but both have lost ground to the NDP and the PPC are polling well enough to draw votes from the Conservatives.
In terms of seats, the Liberals will likely finish above 150 and the Conservatives around 120 so possibly not much different to now but with NDP moving up to just above 30.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
As ever the problem is the tiny minority of criminals and loons. The further problem is that the existence of the criminals and loons ends up with having to restrict the rights of the non-criminals and non-loons.
Of course a lot of morality is architecture. 50 years ago almost all sub 5* hotels were shared bathroom, now it's en suite all the way. Make public loos wholly unitary, like they are on trains n planes, and that part of the problem goes away.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The issue is that as @NickPalmer points out below - it's an issue / policy area where as a political party you just can't win. All parties are desperately avoiding picking a side as that will upset potential voters.
The key imo is to focus on the practical issues and avoid the absolutist theology of the radicalized extremes.
I'd start with this question: What should the balance be between self-ID and medical certification in the process for changing gender?
Then based on the answer to this proceed to 2 more:
- What medical and other resource is required to make the process humane and efficient? - On what grounds should female only activities and spaces be able to exclude transwomen?
I think this structure can generate a good debate and a good policy for any political party.
I would only add that there should be consideration about the age at which such serious decisions should be made has to be considered as well.
Yes, that's an important part of this. OTOH you don't want mixed-up minors making decisions they may come to regret, esp where it involves drugs and surgery. BOTOH, if you are going to make the change it's better to do it young.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
[Google Translate] French President Emmanuel Macron is not only angry with the US and the loss of a submarine deal with Australia that was believed to be safe . Macron is also mad at Switzerland because Federal Bern has decided to procure the American stealth jet F-35 for around six billion francs. For about half a year, Switzerland and France had planned a presidential visit by Federal President Guy Parmelin to Paris. But nothing will come of this working meeting, which should have taken place in November.
Macron doesn't want to see Parmelin. And not only that: Paris does not want to allow any high-level bilateral contacts with federal Bern until next summer. The unusual step not only strains relations between the two countries, but also those between Switzerland and the EU, whose Council presidency Macron will take over in the first half of 2022. The French head of state will play first fiddle in the EU's Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, for six months.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Even Angus Reid, one of the few national pollsters with the Tories still ahead, has the Liberals ahead by 6% in Ontario over the Conservatives and the Liberals leading the Conservatives by 12% in Quebec so very unlikely, every poll would have to be hugely wrong at provincial level.
The Conservatives likely need to be ahead by at least 5%+ in the national popular vote to win most seats
Indeed and let's not forget three quarters of the ridings are in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.
Both Abacus and Mainstreet, in their daily rolling polls, have the Liberals ahead.
Abacus has the Conservatives and NDP tied in British Columbia but the Liberals seven points ahead in Ontario and ahead in Quebec.
Compared to 2019, there's a small swing from Conservatives to Liberals but both have lost ground to the NDP and the PPC are polling well enough to draw votes from the Conservatives.
In terms of seats, the Liberals will likely finish above 150 and the Conservatives around 120 so possibly not much different to now but with NDP moving up to just above 30.
Agreed. But that is very much if polling is correct. Con to Lib swing reverses entirely once you remove Alberta from the figures. I can’t be confident of any result when the polling is within 1%.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Triple lock for wealthy retired. Triple cap for their offspring workers.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
I think our involvement is good for the US because it adds some "Anglosphere" sheen to what is essentially a big arms deal poached from France. And it works for us (or the Johnson government rather) because it makes us look a player post Brexit.
A common narrative earlier in the year was that a Biden presidency would completely undermine Johnson and Brexit Britain because he would sideline the UK and put us on the naughty step while he conducted an EU-centric transatlantic foreign policy. The last week has shown this to be completely mistaken.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Triple lock for wealthy retired. Triple cap for their offspring workers.
Canada increasingly looking like a Clinton/Trump election. 338canada.com has it 68-31 and CBC 71-28 for Liberals most seats. (I assume the other one is a tie). So. A definite favourite. But far, far from a certainty. I, personally, would be going nearer 60-40. Neither result would surprise, let alone shock me.
It is not a Clinton Trump election, for as 2019 showed Trudeau can win even if he loses the popular vote unlike Clinton because of his strength in Ontario and especially Quebec
I meant in terms of the probabilities. And it isn't impossible, though unlikely, that the Tories could win fewer votes and more seats. Undershoot polling in Alberta, Prairies and Quebec by a few. Over in Atlantic, and Ontario by a bit, and bingo, you've done it.
Even Angus Reid, one of the few national pollsters with the Tories still ahead, has the Liberals ahead by 6% in Ontario over the Conservatives and the Liberals leading the Conservatives by 12% in Quebec so very unlikely, every poll would have to be hugely wrong at provincial level.
The Conservatives likely need to be ahead by at least 5%+ in the national popular vote to win most seats
I'm less certain. The Tories have run a clever campaign addressing their inefficiencies by targetting their message at the very places and people they need to win. But for the rise of the PPC they'd be home now, at least as far as most seats goes. But we don't know if the PPC vote exists to the polling extent, will vote, and if it does, will vote PPC. We also don't know if they are habitual non-voters, or what percentage are usual Tories. (Similar to the early days of the rise of UKIP here). There is also marginal turnout. Trudeau is hugely disliked by those who oppose him. Not hugely loved by those who don't. In particular, the NDP appears to be marginally strengthening in the last week, rather than falling away and folding into a Liberal vote. So, there is much uncertainty.
The PPC are on 5% in Ontario with AR and the Liberals lead by 6% in the province, so even if all the PPC voters went Tory there, which they won't, the Liberals would still be ahead there.
The biggest PPC vote is in Alberta and SK and MB so it may be the Conservatives win the popular vote again if the PPC vote falls in their best provinces but still fail to win most seats
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
The lack of self awareness in this post is high, even for you.
Says a poster who - with all things pertaining to UK cf EU - starts with the picture he wishes to see and busts a gut to make every piece fit.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Triple lock for wealthy retired. Triple cap for their offspring workers.
Yep.
Another headache for Johnson this winter.
The triple lock has gone
Oh no it hasn't. A technical glitch corrected this year. The government stands proudly by the triple lock ongoing.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Triple lock for wealthy retired. Triple cap for their offspring workers.
Yep.
Another headache for Johnson this winter.
The triple lock has gone
Oh no it hasn't. A technical glitch corrected this year. The government stands proudly by the triple lock ongoing.
It has this year and as for next I look forward to the detail
I support losing an 8% rise in my pension in April
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
I think our involvement is good for the US because it adds some "Anglosphere" sheen to what is essentially a big arms deal poached from France. And it works for us (or the Johnson government rather) because it makes us look a player post Brexit.
A common narrative earlier in the year was that a Biden presidency would completely undermine Johnson and Brexit Britain because he would sideline the UK and put us on the naughty step while he conducted an EU-centric transatlantic foreign policy. The last week has shown this to be completely mistaken.
Given that Biden is supposed to be quite interested in Irish issues, maybe accidentally firing up Article 16 was a bad idea?
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
You are applying logic and reason to an area of human behaviour where nasty people do nasty things for reasons they (mostly) don't understand themselves.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
Probably because (a) his opponents see it as unfair that they are being attacked by piranhas when Boris is an Evul Fascist, (b) If he got in the debate everyone could unite in attacking him, the way things should be.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
I think our involvement is good for the US because it adds some "Anglosphere" sheen to what is essentially a big arms deal poached from France. And it works for us (or the Johnson government rather) because it makes us look a player post Brexit.
Agree entirely. All the “quantum” and “cyber” and other stuff mentioned is simply window-dressing or is happening anyway.
It’s interesting in if you do some googling just how many different military-security cooperation efforts exist (not just “Five Eyes” but that’s probably the most significant), among the the +/-Anglosphere core. I write it that way as some included only a few members, others include what might be described as “Anglosphere-influenced” countries like Singapore, and there’s a real mix and match.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Only because someone in HR is lazy and wants another filtering criteria. In reality the criteria is binned as soon as recruitment becomes difficult
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
You are applying logic and reason to an area of human behaviour where nasty people do nasty things for reasons they (mostly) don't understand themselves.
Especially when some very nasty individuals will go to very extreme lengths to track down and attack their prey.
Hence why things like female-only shelters tragically need to exist in the first place.
My view remains that Europe as a world power or even a place of significance has had its (pretty long) day in the sun. In 1945 Europe was still such a significant part of world manufacturing that it had strategic importance to the US who could not allow the Soviet Union to dominate it. Hence NATO.
Now, the threat from Russia is massively diminished. I wouldn't be saying that if I lived in the Baltic states or Ukraine or other parts of the former Soviet Union of course. There, their aspirations and mischief making would be a major concern but from the US point of view there is no longer any strategic issue in protecting western Europe which isn't facing any real threat anyway. So NATO is redundant, even if it is politically useful to keep it going in form if not in substance.
Instead the US has strategic interests and concerns in the Pacific. This tilt in this direction has been going on for some time but accelerated considerably under Obama and continued under Trump. AUKUS is a small part of this strategic engagement but there are a host of other treaties and agreements which also play a part.
The UK could have accepted the same backwater status as the rest of Europe but has decided that it wants to play. Some of this is undoubtedly delusional, we want to still matter in world affairs, some of it is a response to Brexit, some of it is looking where economic growth is taking place and wanting a cut of the action, some of it is a bit needy in that we still want to be the US's best pal. I think it is far too early to say whether this will prove a distraction or an economic opportunity and most responses to it say more about the writer's view of UK internal politics than the actual merits. France also wanted to play too and feels left out at the moment but, frankly, who cares?
Good post - lots I agree with - but I plead not guilty to a charge of letting anti-Tory or anti-Brexit sentiment cloud my view of Aukus. I see Australia hooking up with the US on defence (at the expense of a big money deal with France) and the UK involvement as dressing. In which case, ok from our perspective. Nice post-Brexit optics for those who like that sort of thing and think it's important.
But on the off chance I'm reading it wrong, so this IS the platform for a sabre-rattling Pacific NATO, and our involvement IS serious, that would be grim news indeed. America is no special friend of ours. WW2 is an age away. The cold war with the USSR is over. It's a different world now. A world where America is well into its (inevitable) recline decline. Where acting as muttley to their dick dastardly is likely to end up (eg Iraq) in disaster. Where most here look across aghast at the stuff going on with them, their society and their politics. Where (some say) one of their parties has gone crazy with woke and (all say) the other one has gone just plain full blown crazy. Where a corrupt and truly malign human being with a personality disorder and the attention span and intellectual heft of a wasp has been elected President once and could well be again in just three years from now.
So I do not see how us getting embroiled in the battles and proxy battles of this country with China over in the Pacific serves any purpose whatsoever. It won't make the UK a better place. In fact the opposite since it drains resource and focus away from domestic issues. It won't make the world a better place. In fact the opposite since conflict with China is fraught with danger and requires very deft handling - the sort of handling that only a dreamer could think will be forthcoming from Washington DC.
Deft handling in Washington and deft handling in London as well.
I do have concerns that the 'save the world' yearning that has been a dominant feature of UK foreign policy since Blair might be finding a new theatre to play in.
London too, yes, although we've seen on several occasions that we are peripheral. As we are to this, I suspect. It looks to me more like a US/AU marine defence contract at the expense of France than the start of a big new Anglo alliance against China. But we'll see. There's more supposition than fact around at the moment.
If it’s just a US/AU deal, then you must think the US went out of its way to include the UK simply to make a gratuitous statement about its attitude towards its European partners.
I think our involvement is good for the US because it adds some "Anglosphere" sheen to what is essentially a big arms deal poached from France. And it works for us (or the Johnson government rather) because it makes us look a player post Brexit.
A common narrative earlier in the year was that a Biden presidency would completely undermine Johnson and Brexit Britain because he would sideline the UK and put us on the naughty step while he conducted an EU-centric transatlantic foreign policy. The last week has shown this to be completely mistaken.
Yes, I do remember such talk. But I never particularly thought that. I don't think all of this stuff - how the US sees us cf others, us being a "bridge" between them and whoever, the minutae of the "Special Relationship" - merits the attention it gets tbh. I'd like to see us be a bit more grown up and imaginative.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Its effectively financial abuse of vulnerable teenagers to the benefit of middle aged professionals.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Only because someone in HR is lazy and wants another filtering criteria. In reality the criteria is binned as soon as recruitment becomes difficult
The "must have a degree culture" is strong and deep.
Hell, when I worked for a consultancy, one of the guys didn't have a degree. When he went to do some work in a bank, we got a horrified message back from them, saying that they couldn't allow him do the work since he didn't have a degree (from their background check on him). It took a serious amount of push back from the boss to get him on site.
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Only because someone in HR is lazy and wants another filtering criteria. In reality the criteria is binned as soon as recruitment becomes difficult
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
Karen's victims must have been vastly consoled by the statistical unlikelihood of what happened to them.
This whole subject is a debatoid - it looks like a debate, but it turns out to be a phantasm. All anyone sane is saying is, let's have some minor legislation to cover the edge cases and the fakers.
My concern is that we do not have the weight to really influence the US. We delude ourselves with the special relationship from which we do get some intelligence benefits but those benefits are increasingly dearly bought. It is possible that the European countries as a group have that counterweight so when we are supported by or supporting France and Germany we definitely have a louder voice but the US can still go its own way if it wants and in the Pacific it is much more interested in what SK, Japan and Taiwan thinks.
The major challenges we are going to face over the next 30-50 years are in my view likely to come from Africa where an exploding, very young population is going to generate huge instability, wars and millions upon millions of refugees. How do we handle that? France in particular are a much more obvious partner for that than the US who show very little interest. How does this affect our military spend? What capabilities are we actually going to need? A blue water, nuclear powered aircraft carrier based navy seems a relatively unimportant part of the mix.
Disagree. When distributing the finite resources that the UK, as a middle power, has available for defence, the navy seems a reasonable priority.
Of course, this also extends to a substantial flotilla of small patrol boats (whether operated by the armed forces or coastguard,) to make a concerted effort to intercept and detain all the boat people before they can get ashore. They can then all be deported, in the same fashion as the Australians have done, to one of our conveniently remote rocks in the South Atlantic, or perhaps to a friendly African country willing to play host to detention facilities (and which would appreciate a very large annual stipend in exchange for rendering assistance.)
The only way to deal with mass scale irregular migration successfully is to demonstrate that it cannot possibly succeed, and that throwing money at the smuggling gangs is therefore wasteful and futile. Do that for long enough, then people will learn not to bother to try anymore, and the problem resolves itself. Our neighbours will eventually do this for us by strengthening their own borders when the flow of migrants becomes unbearably large for them (as we've already seen happening on the far side of the continent in Greece and Turkey,) but until then it's up to Britain to look to its own defences.
And yes, that's all nasty and horrible and pity the poor tragic refugees etc, etc, etc, but this is a classic case of the irresistible force of people wanting to go wherever the Hell they like meeting the immovable object of the resident population that simply doesn't want them - not to mention the fact that England (which is where at least nine-tenths of the arrivals will inevitably end up) is already more crowded than any of the EU27 states except Malta. As you say, the numbers of migrants (most of whom will be economic rather than refugee in any event) is only going to keep increasing, and there's neither the desire nor the space to accommodate tens of thousands, let alone a future stream of hundreds of thousands, of random settlers in this country every year.
Ultimately, dealing with a flow of desperate people that's larger than your population is willing to put up with requires an approach of complete ruthlessness, which is something that voters typically don't want to think about because it makes them so uncomfortable - but the issue has to be confronted or it will simply fester and get worse and worse and worse.
I am really struggling to see where you disagree to be honest. I am not opposed to spending money on the navy. I have concerns about us spending most of the available budget on Carriers so we can play being a big boy in the South China sea and nuclear subs which we are almost certainly never going to use. In contrast, a reasonable sized flotilla capable of effective interception of refugees seems a perfectly sensible.
Just another normal day in the UK... balaclavaed youths attacking one another. And of course I posted the report from the doctor in London hospital, where now it ends up with fighting there too.
This happened yesterday on Ilford high street two guys running down the high street with machetes in hand
This is be coming more common now in London & across the UK
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
Given the money the ever increasing number of students have been paying for the last decade there does seem to be something fundamentally flawed in the university sector.
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
The problem for the students is that without a degree, you can't get a vast range of jobs now. In the old days there were a fair number of non-degree people, even in senior management. Now you can't get an interview without a degree, in many places. For quite a few jobs it needs to be a Russell Group degree, 2.1 or 1st.
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Its effectively financial abuse of vulnerable teenagers to the benefit of middle aged professionals.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
Karen's victims must have been vastly consoled by the statistical unlikelihood of what happened to them.
This whole subject is a debatoid - it looks like a debate, but it turns out to be a phantasm. All anyone sane is saying is, let's have some minor legislation to cover the edge cases and the fakers.
Which is kinda my point about it crowding other far more common occurrences out.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
That's a point about saliency, though, rather than importance, isn't it?
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
Karen's victims must have been vastly consoled by the statistical unlikelihood of what happened to them.
This whole subject is a debatoid - it looks like a debate, but it turns out to be a phantasm. All anyone sane is saying is, let's have some minor legislation to cover the edge cases and the fakers.
Which is kinda my point about it crowding other far more common occurrences out.
And there in all its glory is the drunk driver fallacy: the erroneous belief that a person, organisation or society can only think about one thing at a time. Whataboutery depends on this premise.
The strategic error of France would be to think that the other European Union [members] will align with us at the expense of United States . It is to overestimate our influence and our attractiveness ...
France should have long understood the doubts and uncertainties of others [in the] European Union
Yes, this is a major miscalculation and going in so hard on the betrayal rhetoric isn't helping them. Lots of Eastern European nations are looking shiftily at their own border worrying about France pushing the US (and UK) away from its long standing commitment to NATO and the defence of Europe.
The UK and France together have got just about enough teeth to keep Putin at bay without US involvement. If the UK decides it isn't interested in protecting the eastern border of Europe that would be a pretty worrying development for the continent.
I hope that the French calm down over the next few days because pushing the US and UK away is a poor idea.
In another 10 years Eastern European countries will have quite a few teeth of their own, too.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
As it happens, I think you're wrong about that low piece of scum White: since she has apparently since had surgery, she was probably not 'pretending' to be trans.
As I've said passim, all segments of society have scum. And suffering does not engender nobility: marginalised groups are just as likely to contain saints and sinners.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
University pension scheme wants to limit any uplift from inflation:
"The JNC has also decided to limit the extent to which members’ benefits are protected from inflation, based on CPI, by capping the annual uplift applied to future benefits at 2.5%." (USS pension scheme website)
With inflation possibly (even likely?) to be roaring ahead in next few years, then this seems an explosive proposal.
Campus trouble coming this winter.
In fairness most pension schemes in my experience will have a cap on the annual uplift. If they don't then trying to ascertain the level of funding required to meet the long term liabilities goes from being a nightmare (or educated guess as actuaries like to call it) to completely impossible. It has not been a significant issue since 2008 because inflation has consistently been low but it was a common problem in the 80s and early 90s.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
As it happens, I think you're wrong about that low piece of scum White: since she has apparently since had surgery, she was probably not 'pretending' to be trans.
As I've said passim, all segments of society have scum. And suffering does not engender nobility: marginalised groups are just as likely to contain saints and sinners.
Going to have to invite you to fuck off there, for accusing me of "obsessing about" anything.
You aren't very good at this. You are like a gammon child who has found a woke costume in the dressing-up box and desperately wants to put it on, but hasn't a clue how the tapes and buttons work.
I did start this conversation by saying "It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights..."
And what in the name of Christ crucified is this batshit stuff about suffering does not engender nobility? wtf has that to do with anything?
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
Yet the lack of pleasure about rising wages among the low paid from those who claim to be concerned about them is noticeable.
Instead the mentality of 'we need more low skilled immigrants to keep the wages down' appears widespread.
This meme has become holy writ among the more retarded (ie all of them) Brexiters.
Can’t we have one day off from it? It’s a Sunday after all.
Funny how you want a day off when you're on the back foot.
Red Letter day for the Raj, is it?
Please outline the principal provisions of the AUKUS deal. Just bullet points is fine.
a) It created a fantastic domestic headline in both Australia and the UK.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
That's a category error.
I don't think you can conflate men and women in this context.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
And the terrible thing is, if you mention group A vs B violence because that is what the conversation is about without also mentioning A vs A, B vs A, B vs B and all the way down to Z vs Θ, you are an obsessive bigot who deserves to burn in hell. It would be like discussing whether Mao's purges were the worst crime committed in the 20th century, without also mentioning the plastic radiator grille on the Series III.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Seems a lot of trouble to go to when those types can just pop down to the nearest meatmarket, go online or indeed start a conventional relationship. Statistically speaking I imagine those are the areas where the vast majority of these nasty things take place.
For me, moving people with a M->F GRC who still have male equipment to a female prison is not acceptable.
Unless conclusive evidence is provided both biologically and sociologically that there is not higher risk of assault etc.
I believe it works broadly as follows: If you have a GRC - ie have legally changed to F - you go to a women's prison unless you're considered a risk to the other inmates for a clear and specific reason (ie not purely because you're trans). If you haven't got a GRC you go to a men's prison. You can, however, request a case conference and present a case for being switched if you feel strongly enough. These conferences are sought and granted mainly in the case of longer sentences and it's the job of the professionals there to assess the risk (in both directions, to the applicant and to other inmates) and say yay or nay. Similar rules apply with transmen. In practice most transgender prisoners M and F are in a prison pertaining to their biological sex.
Notable that, since Thursday, the SNP Government seems to have rejected all media requests for ministers/officials to discuss the NHS and ambulance crisis.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
LONDON — As relations between France and the United States sink to their lowest depths in decades, Britain has emerged as the unlikely winner in a maritime security alliance that has sowed anger and recrimination across three continents.
The British government played an early role in brokering the three-way alliance with the United States and Australia to deploy nuclear-powered submarines in the Pacific, according to officials in London and Washington. The landmark agreement was announced hours after Australia canceled a $66 billion deal for diesel-electric submarines with France, provoking fury in Paris and quiet satisfaction in London.
For Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who will meet this coming week with President Biden at the White House and speak at the United Nations, it is his first tangible victory in a campaign to make post-Brexit Britain a player on the global stage.
On a serious note listening to Marr interview with Ed Davey on trans issues, which I admit I do not normally comment on, it does seem this issue is going to cause considerable controversy for them and also Labour with Rosie Duffield scared of attending their conference.
It's also very dangerous for the Lib Dems. They might be able to cause an upset in the shires in a protest vote by-election, but if they end up looking like Yellow Labour come the next GE then how far are they actually going to get in flipping Tory seats into their column? Not very, one would imagine.
It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights, but I would not in a million years vote for a party which buys the present pro trans activist nonsense. And I am a floating ex tory voter who has voted LD in the past (and for a successful LD candidate, so not just a protest vote). Davey has scuppered himself just when I was beginning to like him.
The problem is the loudmouth idiots on either side. The so-called 'pro-trans' people who seem more interested in arguing more than helping the interests of trans people; the anti-pro-trans people who seem just to want a good barney with the other side and make out that trans people are a threat to women.
And in the middle the trans people suffer, and their interests get forgotten.
Some (few) trans people are a very serious threat to women, and they are the edge cases that the pro trans tend to focus on. This really isn't a symmetrical situation, because there is exactly one right answer, which coincides as usual with my own views, and that is: trans is fine, we just need some boring but necessary regs to cover the special cases of sport, loos, hospitals and prisons, and some law about children making irreversible decisions they later regret. There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them.
I'm unsure if you meant 'pro trans' in your first sentence, or 'anti trans'? But the issue there is that some people are a very serious threat to women, and I haven't seen much evidence that trans people contain a higher proportion. And even if they did, that's not enough reason to castigate all trans people. I certainly don't think any of the ones I've known have been a threat to women.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them." You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
Neither, I meant men who identify as women - i.e. people who do it rather than have a pro or anti view on it. Your "only a tiny minority" argument is like the NRA on guns: sometimes the edge cases are so bad you have to legislate for them no matter how numerically insignificant they are. If it makes the argument more palatable I am probably talking in the main about 100% cis men who pretend to be trans for nefarious ends. Like dear old Karen
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
It is the other way. One is the threat others face from trans people. The other way is the threat trans people face from others. And it appears from the figures that the latter is much higher than the former, in prisons at least.
No its not the other way since you're conflating three separate groups. One is the threat women face from trans people, the other is the threat trans people face from men.
In prisons the latter is higher, but then in prisons the threat from men is considerably higher by default. That's why women are separated from men, that's not a reason to mix trans in with women.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
Trans men assault women: but so do cis men - doubleplusvalid argument.
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
As far as I can tell people from every group assault people from every other group.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
And the terrible thing is, if you mention group A vs B violence because that is what the conversation is about without also mentioning A vs A, B vs A, B vs B and all the way down to Z vs Θ, you are an obsessive bigot who deserves to burn in hell. It would be like discussing whether Mao's purges were the worst crime committed in the 20th century, without also mentioning the plastic radiator grille on the Series III.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mao was worse than the plastic radiator grill? Monster! Heretic!
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
It's obviously and trivially true that some men will go to strange lengths to do nasty things to women, and it's obviously true that one of the things available to them is to self-identify as a woman to get access to women's spaces.
Yes. But it's far from the top 20 scenarios in which nasty things are done to women. Focus on violence against women in far more common situations is meanwhile crowded out.
Where is it "crowded out"?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
In the media. In society. On this very board. There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily. How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives? And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
There have been very occasional discussions. The last one I recall ended on a 'but women assault and murder men too' note, the all lives matter viewpoint if you like.
On many occasions, I've mentioned the hideous levels of violence in the UK: often to people claiming it's not as bad as the figures suggest.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
I got another conviction on Friday for rape, an ex army man who had interfered with his 2 step daughters, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (where he had been acquitted). There are some pretty repulsive people out there.
The French can cope with being humiliated and screwed over by America. Because the USA is much bigger. A superpower. Like China. That’s life. Withdraw the ambassador. It’s a mere gesture but it might sting them
The French can cope with the Australian betrayal (tho it hurts more). The Australians are inferior. A small country with too many kangaroos. Pff! Withdraw the ambassador and try and destabilize their tiny politics
Britain? Brexit Britain? Perfidious Albion? This is their exact rival, and equal. The country next door that constantly infuriates them even as it intrigues them. This stupid foggy island has totally beaten us?? It’s the pain of Sunderland losing to Newcastle. It is a bitter local rivalry. Withdrawing the French ambassador in London would be acknowledging England’s triumph. It is too painful, so instead they resort to cooking metaphors
I think there's another layer which is that the French elite are collectively afraid of contemplating the possibility that Boris Johnson was right about the EU. They can't take him seriously, because their own worldview depends on seeing him as a clown.
The same applies to a great number of posters on this site.
The PB elite?
It has been even more noticeable in the post-Brexit years that a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north. Of course it all began with the unfortunate microphone incident with Gordon Brown. It is this above all which has riven the Labour party asunder and it's unclear that they are even on the road to recognising let alone mending this problem. The current treatment of some of their women MPs referred to above is simply the latest example of this problem.
Putting thoughts and motivations in other people's minds has also become common, no?
Have you ever read Roger's comments? Do you think the GB microphone comment was fake?
How would you feel if I attributed the views of (say) @HYUFD to broadly right wing people?
Fine - but be more specific - I referred to, quote, 'a section of the liberal left' which, without wishing to be condescending, is I think rather narrower than 'broadly right wing people', no?
I apologise if I've gotten a bit shirty. One of the things that has really annoyed me about the... shall I call it Trump era? although it's clearly a bigger issue...is this creating caricatures of our political opponents.
I see it when politicians of the Left accuse those on the Right of being racist for not signing up to the whole BLM thing.
Anyway: you're usually a pretty thoughtful and nuanced poster, but "a section of the liberal left elite have utter contempt for those less educated among sections of the lower w/c especially from the north" triggered me.
The reality is that the vast, vast majority of our political opponents only want the best for the British people. They may have a slightly different view of what exactly best constitutes or the correct path to get there.
But their views, by and large, and every bit as morally valid as ours. (Albeit often not as practical, well thought out, properly costed, or recognising of the foibles of human nature.)
But "a section of the liberal left elite" who keep proposing the same remedy to the nation's ills - namely, piling unsustainable levels of tax and borrowing onto the shoulders of the private sector to the benefit of the public sector - is wilfully NOT wanting the best for the British people. It is looking out for a narrow section of its own self-interest, whilst ignoring that every time they implement it, the economy goes tits up. And the poorest inevitably suffer the most.
At what point is it safe to heap moral opprobrium on them for that?
This is confusing. Are people who work in the public sector the "elite"? How are you "liberal" and "left" at the same time? Is the huge borrowing undertaken by the Conservative government part of this left-liberal ruination of the economy, and if not, why not?
Those who work in the public sector have been the elite during the Covid crisis for sure. They have kept their pay (often having massive overtime too), kept their pensions, kept their career progression. It was very largely the private sector that got done over.
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.
Ed Davey accusing Boris of toxifying trans right debate.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
I'm curious as to *how* Boris has been toxifying the trans rights debates.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I can't think of Boris getting involved in the trans debate at all, on either side of it.
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
He's appointed Badenoch, who said something anti-trans a few years ago (called trans-women men, I think) as Equalities Minister
Has Vice News found the recording yet?
Don't think so; I certainly haven't heard it yet
So they have made a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations which are being cited as fact. Surprised the editor (or lawyers) let that one through.
Comments
https://twitter.com/utb_smith/status/1439547196769177600?s=20
But we don't know if the PPC vote exists to the polling extent, will vote, and if it does, will vote PPC. We also don't know if they are habitual non-voters, or what percentage are usual Tories. (Similar to the early days of the rise of UKIP here).
There is also marginal turnout. Trudeau is hugely disliked by those who oppose him. Not hugely loved by those who don't.
In particular, the NDP appears to be marginally strengthening in the last week, rather than falling away and folding into a Liberal vote.
So, there is much uncertainty.
Are lib dems going to get themselves so wrapped up in this issue again that they lose focus on anything else?
Both Abacus and Mainstreet, in their daily rolling polls, have the Liberals ahead.
https://abacusdata.ca/daily-tracking-poll-election-44-sept-18/
Abacus has the Conservatives and NDP tied in British Columbia but the Liberals seven points ahead in Ontario and ahead in Quebec.
Compared to 2019, there's a small swing from Conservatives to Liberals but both have lost ground to the NDP and the PPC are polling well enough to draw votes from the Conservatives.
In terms of seats, the Liberals will likely finish above 150 and the Conservatives around 120 so possibly not much different to now but with NDP moving up to just above 30.
Indeed, there is a tendency to talk of the threat some trans people are to women, e.g. in jail, and then ignore the much greater threats trans people suffer. I posted figures the other day for the number of assaults on trans people in prison, and it's far greater than the other way.
Take a statement like: "trans people should not use women's spaces." That probably gets nods of agreement from many. Yet to fully transition and have the op, you need to live as a woman for a period - a year or two. This means a pre-op trans person has to use the facilities of their new gender. There are obvious very real issues in them not doing this.
"There may be nutters who regard all trans people as the spawn of the devil, but I haven't heard of them."
You don't read the right (wrong) places, obviously. And the sad thing is some of the pro-trans people can seem just as nasty.
The pride of the Irish navy
When the Captain he blows on his whistle
All the sailors go home for their tea.
Dubliners
Clнona spookily rhymes with Gleaner.
How would Boris Johnson answer the same question?
I can’t be confident of any result when the polling is within 1%.
Another headache for Johnson this winter.
They lost me at that revelation
The biggest PPC vote is in Alberta and SK and MB so it may be the Conservatives win the popular vote again if the PPC vote falls in their best provinces but still fail to win most seats
https://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021.09.18_federal_final.pdf
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
My sympathy would be with the students if it wasn't for the fact they seem to think that £30k+ debt is worth the experience.
Politically the government seems to have taken the softly, softly approach, handling various issues through extension of existing law and medical practise - e.g. Gilick Rule on teenagers and transition.
Or is it a case that the Prime Minister, when seeing his opponents being attacked by piranhas, is duty bound to go swimming? Or something?
I support losing an 8% rise in my pension in April
So they *have* to pay the £30K+
Electricity :-) ?
Beautiful example of the drunk driver's fallacy ("Why aren't you out catching rapists, officer?")
Which seems about the right thing to do to be honest. Not sure how that's toxifying?
It’s interesting in if you do some googling just how many different military-security cooperation efforts exist (not just “Five Eyes” but that’s probably the most significant), among the the +/-Anglosphere core. I write it that way as some included only a few members, others include what might be described as “Anglosphere-influenced” countries like Singapore, and there’s a real mix and match.
There is a trans discussion on here virtually daily.
How often do we discuss, in depth, the women assaulted or murdered by their partners, the children abused by relatives?
And what is to be done about it? Very rarely.
Hence why things like female-only shelters tragically need to exist in the first place.
Hell, when I worked for a consultancy, one of the guys didn't have a degree. When he went to do some work in a bank, we got a horrified message back from them, saying that they couldn't allow him do the work since he didn't have a degree (from their background check on him). It took a serious amount of push back from the boss to get him on site.
https://thecritic.co.uk/keep-men-out-of-womens-prisons/
For me, moving people with a M->F GRC who still have male equipment to a female prison is not acceptable.
Unless conclusive evidence is provided both biologically and sociologically that there is not higher risk of assault etc.
This whole subject is a debatoid - it looks like a debate, but it turns out to be a phantasm. All anyone sane is saying is, let's have some minor legislation to cover the edge cases and the fakers.
This happened yesterday on Ilford high street two guys running down the high street with machetes in hand
This is be coming more common now in London & across the UK
Cc @ig1_ig2 https://t.co/dfan9nPBzj
https://twitter.com/CrimeLdn/status/1439565073161277444?s=19
Lighter touch than NATO, but annual exercises, and immediate consultation on being threatened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Power_Defence_Arrangements
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52748117
As it happens, I think you're wrong about that low piece of scum White: since she has apparently since had surgery, she was probably not 'pretending' to be trans.
As I've said passim, all segments of society have scum. And suffering does not engender nobility: marginalised groups are just as likely to contain saints and sinners.
I'm quite confused by the score though
https://twitter.com/ThatsSoVillage/status/1439548982053715969
You aren't very good at this. You are like a gammon child who has found a woke costume in the dressing-up box and desperately wants to put it on, but hasn't a clue how the tapes and buttons work.
I did start this conversation by saying "It is indeed. I have been passionately pro gay rights ever since I was old enough to understand the issue, I am exactly as pro trans rights as I am pro gay rights..."
And what in the name of Christ crucified is this batshit stuff about suffering does not engender nobility? wtf has that to do with anything?
Men assault women: but women assault men too - doubleplusfallacious argument.
Clear distinction.
Just taking last years figures (1), nearly 2% of adults have faced attempted or actual sexual assault. That means most of us will no-one someone who has faced that type of abuse in the last year.
When it comes to domestic abuse (2), 2.3 million adults faced domestic abuse last year. You will certainly know one or two of them. Of these, about a third of the victims are male, two-thirds female.
I happen to think it's pretty much irrelevant whether the victim is male or female: they need help and support.
(1): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2020
(2): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020
That's male prisoners assaulting Transgender Identified Men in a male prison.
Which is not "the other way" to Transgender Identified Men assaulting Women in a woman's prison.
Perhaps we need to be looking at some units for "self-identified but not surgically altered" prisoners within larger prisons.
@IshmaelZ
'Women commit assault too' *is* a valid argument (see child abuse numbers, for example), but I agree not in this context.
b) It annoyed the French.
c) It annoyed the Chinese.
I don't think you can conflate men and women in this context.
In fact, the prison thing has become an issue, because some people from one group, who had assaulted people in another group, were sent to prison, moved from one group to another, got moved to a prison for the their new group and then assaulted some more people.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/minister-refuses-to-rule-out-removing-price-cap-as-energy-costs-soar-3rw3rsqb7
Probably the least worst option available to the govt. Kwarteng is going to take some heat, though.
It’s a really bad time to cut UC…
https://twitter.com/mike_blackley/status/1439518312015310849?s=21
That would be about the same time they asked the UK government to send the British Army to help….funny that….
In prisons the latter is higher, but then in prisons the threat from men is considerably higher by default. That's why women are separated from men, that's not a reason to mix trans in with women.
With a bit of thought withdrawal of the temporary boost in UC was always going to be controversial
So why call it UC?
Why not call it “COVID supplement support payment” - same amount, same people
With a bit of thought withdrawal of the temporary boost in UC was always going to be controversial
So why call it UC?
Why not call it “COVID supplement support payment” - same amount, same people
This Conservative government took the hard decision to support the workers in the private sector until they were better able to weather the economic storm. That storm has taken longer to abate than might have been expected, but the government stood by that pledge. It has borrowed vast amounts of money in order to do so. The difference is that if had elected a Corbyn government in 2017 or 2019, then by the time Covid hit, the headroom to borrow for furlough would have already gone - to the public sector.
So it is still quite easy to square the circle. This Government - absent a once in a century public health disaster - would prefer to have a smaller state - and consequently, lower taxation. But part of the fall-out of that health disaster has been the now impossible-to-defer need to confront the provision of social care. That has required a rise in taxation. Nobody has come up with an alternative route. Certainly not HM Opposition.
But when it comes to the next set of manifestos, the Labour Party will again propose more taxation and borrowing than can ever be endured by the private sector. And the Conservative Party will oppose that.