Husband still unable to swallow. Or eat. Even taking the pills - cut in half - is painful. And now specks of blood, presumably from the injury, are being coughed up.
So he's going to try and get an ENT referral via his GP.
Who knew walnut halves could be so dangerous!
In my working life I used occasionally to have to make a liquid form of a solid medication. Not always possible, of course, and many pharmacies would not now have the necessary equipment or ingredients, but it might be worth a try.
He's on co-amoxicillin. He cannot even swallow his own saliva. He tried taking Boots Honey, Lemon and Glycerin linctus but had to give up. Cold water is all he can take. We are hoping that once the antibiotics have done their magic the throat will open up. But if this does not happen .... back to the doc he goes. I worry that something else is going on but the ENT guy did not see anything.
It is very odd and a bit worrying. It seems such a silly thing to have caused all this hoo-ha.
The one good thing that has happened is that yesterday he got to meet Piet Oudolf, the Dutch garden designer, as part of a project, for which there is funding to create some sort of High Line (or similar) in the area on disused railway lines etc. All part of a wider project to showcase the beauty of this area, attract tourists, regenerate etc. Husband is involved in this and I hope to be too - given my interest in all things garden-related. It will be great if it comes off.
Take it he's having the liquid formulation? But I agree with you; TBH, although from miles and miles away, I wonder about some sort of allergic reaction to the nuts. Has he ever had problems with nuts before?
No - pills.
No allergies before. He did have a bad reaction to the anti-tetanus injection as a child.
Needs further investigation. But as of now he can sip a bit of water.
That like is for the "sip a bit of water". Very best wishes. And don't forget to look after yourself too.
Last call on Canada. 60-40 for Liberals most seats. A bit more bearish than most. BUT. Also a 20% chance of a Liberal majority, if the marginal turnout is good, and votes fall in the right places. Smarkets 21/5 for Tory most seats is a super value bet. The only thing which would really shock me is a Tory majority. Cannot for the life of me see how that happens. On a personal note, and I've tried to be objective. Come on NDP! Don't falter as usual. Jagmeet Singh is a super candidate, and whoever wins needs to be aware there is a large bloc of voters on the Left who never get anywhere near power. Although the PPC may well be the story.
I can never understand why the Liberals and NDP don't consider going into coalition government.
@julianborger French FM Le Drian says he has no intention of meeting his counterpart Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the UN, "though I might see him here or there, in a corridor".
Hmm. Uncle Joe's tone seems to prove what I suspected all along: AUUKUS was more about pleasing the US arms sector and getting influence over the Australian military than any particular love of Boris.
Some day you may get it right AUKUS, not AUUKUS
Let's call the whole thing off! But anyway, naughty old Phillip Thompson was tricking me with old front pages. But I'm probably still right.
@julianborger French FM Le Drian says he has no intention of meeting his counterpart Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the UN, "though I might see him here or there, in a corridor".
Hmm. Uncle Joe's tone seems to prove what I suspected all along: AUUKUS was more about pleasing the US arms sector and getting influence over the Australian military than any particular love of Boris.
Which is a good thing for the UK.
The last and creepiest thing you want is for an arrangement to be due to transient and potentially lame duck leader's "love" for each other.
Instead Biden and Boris are both professional enough to know that the USA and the UK are extremely close allies and are willing to set aside any ridiculous nonsense that gets people excited on Twitter.
Some people fallaciously thought that either Boris or Brexit had torched Britain's relationship with the White House. That's now comprehensively been shown to be pure BDS.
Just had an email which seems genuine from PFP energy our (erstwhile?) energy supplier, headed "We do not have confidence in the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng".
"...Ofgem made Kwarteng aware of the ongoing pressure to energy suppliers on 26th March 2020 but his disregard for the issues and lack of willingness to create support for the industry has resulted in a large increase in the cost of powering homes and hundreds of job losses..."
Interesting tactic, if genuine.
On 26 March 2020, PFP could have hedged their entire energy exposure at about a quarter of current prices.
And somehow Kwarteng is responsible?
Today I received this email from my supplier, Good Energy.
"You’ll no doubt have seen the news around the turbulence in the energy market which has led to several of our competitors failing and speculation about others following.
I would like to reassure you all that Good Energy is stable, prudently run and not at risk of running into difficulty.
Many of the suppliers under threat have taken risks, pricing below cost and don’t have the 20 years’ experience that Good Energy does in trading energy.
We are financially and operationally sound and I am confident that we are robust enough to navigate the current market conditions. We are a well-run company with a sustainable model.
The Good Energy team and I will keep a close eye on the situation, but please rest assured that Good Energy is in a solid position."
I do hope it doesn't prove to be hubris, but they're not pulling their punches in respect of the companies that have collapsed.
You'd imagine well-run companies would be outraged if others were bailed out.
Yes, wouldn't have expected them to take a shot at others so blatantly. Must be popular with the others. Then again, their confidence is expressed in their name.
Yes, I got the Kwarteng e-mail as well - I use Green Energy:
"Hello,
We have zero confidence in Kwasi Kwarteng continuing to act as the Business Secretary in the UK, due to the lack of support towards energy suppliers and their customers. In recent news, Kwarteng has had meetings with Ofgem and with large energy suppliers - neglecting smaller suppliers, with customers totalling in the millions and thousands of staff members.
Kwarteng said that small firms would be allowed to go bankrupt, with their customers auctioned off to the company prepared to offer them the cheapest rate (source). We believe that he is unfit for his current role and further action is needed to ensure that the energy market has adequate support.
Due to current wholesale costs and the actions of Kwarteng, customers are most likely to see a big increase in the cost of powering their homes in the coming months. Ofgem made Kwarteng aware of the ongoing pressure to energy suppliers on 26th March 2020. "
What a whiny self-serving whinge.
As RCS wrote earlier today they could have hedged their energy prices at a quarter of today's prices on 26/03/20
If they failed to do so, that's not Kwarteng's responsibility.
If I were Kwasi I''d be furious with the bloody idiot government who designed such a system.
I thought TissuePrice had posted a link to the Canadian election show but I can't find it. Does anyone remember when or what time he posted it? Maybe it was on a previous thread.
TP last posted once in January 2020 and before that post his last posts were in November 2019.
I wonder if anything happened around then that changed the way he approaches discussing politics? 🤔
Lol, yes.
Canada:(credit viewcode)
SOME HANDY LINKS * Live election results from Elections Canada[2] * Election prediction from Andy_JS: don't know if kosher.[3] * Live election results from Global News[4][5]
INTERESTING STATS * Postal votes. Canada allows voting by mail. As of Sunday, 1,262,617 postal vote kits (aka special ballot kits) and 923,832 had been returned.[1] * Advanced voting. Canada allows voting in person in advance. In-person voting at advance polls was higher than the last election in 2019, with approximately 5,780,000 votes cast from Sept. 10-13.[1]
In response to @kinabalu - "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."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
I agree with nearly all of that.
Where you say "my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned" sounds like you are defining some female spaces as being for those without a penis, i.e. that is the defining factor rather than being female (gender) or female (sex).
I would not be bothered by a Jan Morris using the ladies loo. But I know some women are.
Just had an email which seems genuine from PFP energy our (erstwhile?) energy supplier, headed "We do not have confidence in the Business Secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng".
"...Ofgem made Kwarteng aware of the ongoing pressure to energy suppliers on 26th March 2020 but his disregard for the issues and lack of willingness to create support for the industry has resulted in a large increase in the cost of powering homes and hundreds of job losses..."
Interesting tactic, if genuine.
On 26 March 2020, PFP could have hedged their entire energy exposure at about a quarter of current prices.
And somehow Kwarteng is responsible?
Today I received this email from my supplier, Good Energy.
"You’ll no doubt have seen the news around the turbulence in the energy market which has led to several of our competitors failing and speculation about others following.
I would like to reassure you all that Good Energy is stable, prudently run and not at risk of running into difficulty.
Many of the suppliers under threat have taken risks, pricing below cost and don’t have the 20 years’ experience that Good Energy does in trading energy.
We are financially and operationally sound and I am confident that we are robust enough to navigate the current market conditions. We are a well-run company with a sustainable model.
The Good Energy team and I will keep a close eye on the situation, but please rest assured that Good Energy is in a solid position."
I do hope it doesn't prove to be hubris, but they're not pulling their punches in respect of the companies that have collapsed.
You'd imagine well-run companies would be outraged if others were bailed out.
Yes, wouldn't have expected them to take a shot at others so blatantly. Must be popular with the others. Then again, their confidence is expressed in their name.
Yes, I got the Kwarteng e-mail as well - I use Green Energy:
"Hello,
We have zero confidence in Kwasi Kwarteng continuing to act as the Business Secretary in the UK, due to the lack of support towards energy suppliers and their customers. In recent news, Kwarteng has had meetings with Ofgem and with large energy suppliers - neglecting smaller suppliers, with customers totalling in the millions and thousands of staff members.
Kwarteng said that small firms would be allowed to go bankrupt, with their customers auctioned off to the company prepared to offer them the cheapest rate (source). We believe that he is unfit for his current role and further action is needed to ensure that the energy market has adequate support.
Due to current wholesale costs and the actions of Kwarteng, customers are most likely to see a big increase in the cost of powering their homes in the coming months. Ofgem made Kwarteng aware of the ongoing pressure to energy suppliers on 26th March 2020. "
What a whiny self-serving whinge.
As RCS wrote earlier today they could have hedged their energy prices at a quarter of today's prices on 26/03/20
If they failed to do so, that's not Kwarteng's responsibility.
If I were Kwasi I''d be furious with the bloody idiot government who designed such a system.
The government didn't design these companies business models.
Competent businesses paid to hedge their costs and they've got no issue now. Incompetent ones didn't and they're going out of business. That happens, bad businesses can go bust, that's not a flaw in the system.
The UK’s strategic realignment was not inevitable. It is to a large extent the result of how the EU conducted the Brexit talks. The EU leadership never missed an opportunity to criticise Brexit. Donald Tusk, former president of the European Council, aligned himself to the second referendum campaign in the UK.
The second mistake, even worse than the first, was the intent to force the EU’s regulatory system on the UK as a price for a free trade deal. At no point did the EU even consider what kind of strategic relationship it wanted with the UK after Brexit. The EU let anger over Brexit get in the way over rational decision-making.
The enormous cost of this stupidity is slowly becoming apparent. The UK will not flood the EU with cheap goods, as France had feared. The UK’s strategy is more subtle. It will gradually cut off from European security policy. It will also cut off from the GDPR data protection regime and financial regulation. The UK has invested more into artificial intelligence than any EU member states. It is a permanent member of the UN security council and the G7. What on earth was the EU thinking?
And no, Biden is not going intervene on the EU’s behalf in the current standoff over Northern Ireland. EU leaders have always underestimated Boris Johnson. And they always overestimated Joe Biden. A bad combination.
….
Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers. The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.
The adult version of strategic autonomy is a very serious undertaking, for which the EU is not equipped. The collective failure to understand Biden’s foreign policy and the need for an alliance with the UK is telling us that the venture has no hope of succeeding.
@julianborger French FM Le Drian says he has no intention of meeting his counterpart Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the UN, "though I might see him here or there, in a corridor".
Hmm. Uncle Joe's tone seems to prove what I suspected all along: AUUKUS was more about pleasing the US arms sector and getting influence over the Australian military than any particular love of Boris.
Some day you may get it right AUKUS, not AUUKUS
Let's call the whole thing off! But anyway, naughty old Phillip Thompson was tricking me with old front pages. But I'm probably still right.
Not sure who Phillip is. Maybe someone related to this fictional AUUKUS you keep writing about Staark?
In response to @kinabalu - "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."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
I agree with nearly all of that.
Where you say "my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned" sounds like you are defining some female spaces as being for those without a penis, i.e. that is the defining factor rather than being female (gender) or female (sex).
I would not be bothered by a Jan Morris using the ladies loo. But I know some women are.
I be terrified if dead people started using public restrooms, so I'm completely with you on this.
The French seem to think that, no matter their utter inflexibility in the Brexit negotiations, leading to the fall of a British government; no matter their determination to make sure that Brexit leaves a permanent economic scar in Northern Ireland which could fracture the Union; no matter even their threats to our electricity supply – in the end Britain will line up meekly alongside France in their military ambitions for Europe. It is the ultimate example of European cakeism.
But relationships don’t work like that. Our defence relationship with France is deep, strategic and important. But it will only move to another level if France stops treating us as a renegade state needing to be punished for Brexit and instead as an independent, equal sovereign power.
The French view has always been that Brexit was a British choice and we have no right to ask others to make choices. Fair enough – but now perhaps they will realise that in a relationship of equals both sides have to show give and take.
Yes, that was a good piece from Hunt today. Finally Tory remainers are recognising that our relationship with the EU must be a two way street. Theresa May's sellout deal which kept us on the hook for EU foreign policy and defence initiatives while having no say and no opportunity to pursue our own initiatives would have taken deals like this off the table.
France kept telling is Brexit means Brexit, they were right and it does. This is also part of the Brexit process. We will continue to detach ourselves from the EU and that means the EU becomes less relevant to us. It's a vicious circle for them that will result in them continually lashing out at the UK, further distancing both parties.
It all started when the EU thought it would be a good idea to give Dave a shit deal that actually vindicated the Leave campaign.
Well, it started long before that actually. Forty years of being taken for granted as long as we signed cheques each year. In fact it started with the disastrously unfavourable entry terms we got in the 70s.
@julianborger French FM Le Drian says he has no intention of meeting his counterpart Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the UN, "though I might see him here or there, in a corridor".
Hmm. Uncle Joe's tone seems to prove what I suspected all along: AUUKUS was more about pleasing the US arms sector and getting influence over the Australian military than any particular love of Boris.
Some day you may get it right AUKUS, not AUUKUS
Let's call the whole thing off! But anyway, naughty old Phillip Thompson was tricking me with old front pages. But I'm probably still right.
Not sure who Phillip is. Maybe someone related to this fictional AUUKUS you keep writing about Staark?
I got the 'p' in 'Thompson' right! Which I did actually look down the thread to check.
Last call on Canada. 60-40 for Liberals most seats. A bit more bearish than most. BUT. Also a 20% chance of a Liberal majority, if the marginal turnout is good, and votes fall in the right places. Smarkets 21/5 for Tory most seats is a super value bet. The only thing which would really shock me is a Tory majority. Cannot for the life of me see how that happens. On a personal note, and I've tried to be objective. Come on NDP! Don't falter as usual. Jagmeet Singh is a super candidate, and whoever wins needs to be aware there is a large bloc of voters on the Left who never get anywhere near power. Although the PPC may well be the story.
I can never understand why the Liberals and NDP don't consider going into coalition government.
It's simply not part of the political culture, though it has happened. Either Federally or Provincially. They are very used to, and comfortable with, minority governments. And informal co-operation on an ad hoc basis. I guess that is because, even though they have our system, the Provincially massively devolved nature of the country, and its sheer size, has made majorities much less common than here. With Scotland, and the LD experience of the Coalition, maybe that is something we have coming soon?
@julianborger French FM Le Drian says he has no intention of meeting his counterpart Secretary of State Tony Blinken at the UN, "though I might see him here or there, in a corridor".
Hmm. Uncle Joe's tone seems to prove what I suspected all along: AUUKUS was more about pleasing the US arms sector and getting influence over the Australian military than any particular love of Boris.
Which is a good thing for the UK.
The last and creepiest thing you want is for an arrangement to be due to transient and potentially lame duck leader's "love" for each other.
Instead Biden and Boris are both professional enough to know that the USA and the UK are extremely close allies and are willing to set aside any ridiculous nonsense that gets people excited on Twitter.
Some people fallaciously thought that either Boris or Brexit had torched Britain's relationship with the White House. That's now comprehensively been shown to be pure BDS.
Such as "look, a French guy is speaking French! He should speak English!" 🤷♂ Good post, otherwise.
Considering I said that the French minister speaking in French was something you should expect from French ministers, I'm not sure why you directed that to me as an otherwise?
I thought TissuePrice had posted a link to the Canadian election show but I can't find it. Does anyone remember when or what time he posted it? Maybe it was on a previous thread.
TP last posted once in January 2020 and before that post his last posts were in November 2019.
I wonder if anything happened around then that changed the way he approaches discussing politics? 🤔
Lol, yes.
Canada:(credit viewcode)
SOME HANDY LINKS * Live election results from Elections Canada[2] * Election prediction from Andy_JS: don't know if kosher.[3] * Live election results from Global News[4][5]
INTERESTING STATS * Postal votes. Canada allows voting by mail. As of Sunday, 1,262,617 postal vote kits (aka special ballot kits) and 923,832 had been returned.[1] * Advanced voting. Canada allows voting in person in advance. In-person voting at advance polls was higher than the last election in 2019, with approximately 5,780,000 votes cast from Sept. 10-13.[1]
On (3). Yes it is kosher. It is Eric Grenier, the Canadian John Curtice. Tying 2 topics together. He didn't use English till age 18. You wouldn't know.
If Thatcher or May had been revealed to have committed adultery , would either have become Tory leader? Truss is also a former Libdem.
Why not?
What kind of closed-minded intolerant idiot would care about that ephemera?
Thankfully not the Tory membership. That's already been put to the test.
Do you really believe that Thatcher - or May - having had a kid or two out of wedlock would have had no impact on her leadership ambitions? I suspect that even being selected as a PPC would have proved problematic.
Could it have been an issue in the distant past? Absolutely, though a woman or a minority getting elected was a bigger challenge. Thank goodness those days are over eh?
Would it be an issue today? Or recent past for May? No of course not, don't be a dingbat. That's already been put to the test and a serial adulterer won a landslide leadership election victory.
Most people are likely to view the 1960s and 1970s as the recent past - ie'afew years ago' - rather a period little different from Victorian Britain. I doubt that most people view The Beatles as ancient history.
No offence but maybe old people feel that was only a few years ago, but yes sixty years ago are quite a distant past now and the times have quite rightly changed since then.
To put it into context the distance between today and 1960 is the same distance as the Victorian era from 1960, or 1980 from the First World War. I certainly felt growing up in the 80s that WW1 was in the ancient past. Did any child of the 60s feel the Victorian era was only a few years ago then?
You are making me feel old !!!!!!
Girls Just Wanna Have Fun was released closer to WW2 than to today.
In a similar vein, my date of birth is closer to the Abdication Crisis than the present day.
It'd be time for a stiff drink if I had any booze in the flat. A Kit Kat will have to suffice
Well mine's closer to Victoria's reign than to today!
That genuinely surprises me. I always thought you were younger than me. My DoB is still closer to the Titanic than to the present day. Which is kind of strange to consider.
This is fun. Mine is getting alarming close to equidistant to the year my company began, 1879. Another 8 years to go!
I'm in no danger of that - my company dates back to 1803!
I had a great first in-person meeting with UK Foreign Secretary @trussliz to discuss shared priorities, from Iran and Afghanistan to a free and open Indo-Pacific.
On the header, I think Starmer is determined not to get publicly involved in the sensitivities of the 'trans' debate(s). He knows that as soon as he comments, media coverage will focus for days, if not longer, on what he's said, and will open toxic wounds. He wants the focus to be on the 'big' issues, not peripheral (even if important) concerns. So he's avoiding the debate, just as he's avoiding re-opening Brexit wounds. It's probably good politics. I would hope that he reaches out to Rosie Duffield privately. I suspect he's broadly in support of those advocating pro-Trans + safe spaces for women, as is the current situation.
MPs who receive threats deserve very public support, not private words of support.
Mmm. Like whenever I mention the truly shocking level of sustained abuse that (say) Diane Abbot received for years and everyone says well, you know, public eye, and anyway it's cos she's a bit thick and can't do numbers, so what can you expect.
But Rosie Duffield gets a bit of online stick and - ooo - it's front page of the Sunday Times, and all over the Murdoch press, and it's the most TERRIBLE thing ever, and it just shows how HORRIBLE and IRRATIONAL all these weirdo lefty trans people are, how they
In response to @kinabalu - "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."
This is a not bad approach. And my answer to the first question is this.
- There is nothing to stop any man calling himself a female name or dressing in women's clothes. There is absolutely no reason for the law to get involved at all. - If gender dysphoria is a medical condition, then before someone can claim to suffer from it, there must be a medical diagnosis. We do not permit people to declare themselves suffering any other sort of medical condition without diagnosis. Why should this be an exception? - If transition is the answer to for an individual with this condition - and note that it is often not the answer, especially for children - then once transition has happened, a gender recognition certificate can be given. - The medical and other resources available to those suffering from this condition are very poor. The waiting times are very long indeed. This does cause suffering to people needing help. THIS is where the focus should be - on increasing the resources and reducing waiting times and providing support and help in the interim. It is notable that this is not what the trans activists are campaigning about. - It is not for women to justify why they need female-only spaces. This should be the default assumption. The burden should be the other way around. Are there any circumstances when people born male should be given access to female-only spaces and female-only sports. And my answer is only for those who have fully transitioned (and not even for those in the case of sport, because of the irreversible effects of puberty in a male). - So women have to right to loos, refuges, changing rooms, sport, single sex wards, intimate care being provided by a woman, rape counselling by a woman, female only prisons etc. If they wish to allow a man in, that is their choice not that of the man. In no circumstances should a man or transwoman guilty of offences against women, girls and children be allowed into a female-only space.
Cheers thanks. I'd argue for the default the other way. Inclusion unless there's a good reason otherwise. I'm not sure about self-ID but whatever you do, self-ID is at the heart of it since only the person truly knows how they feel. It's in place in several countries without serious problems, I believe. We aren't cutting edge radical on this, not at all.
Great header anyway. I might try and see if I can write one putting the alternative (and less popular on here!) view.
Couple of things I'd like to ask you now if you have the time and inclination:
Do you know any transpeople?
Harking back to Mrs May's proposed GRA reforms, can you remember if you were passionately opposed to them at the time, or is this an issue you've plunged a lot more into in the last year or so?
Re the real practical harm to women if transwomen can self-ID and share their facilities/spaces. If - IF - you could be convinced that it'd be immeasurably less than the harm caused to transwomen if they can't, would this influence your view at all?
I ask this because I detect a strong theological strand to some of the GC feminist argument inc yours, ie that maybe it's not, deep down and fundamentally, about being massively scared about perverts pretending to be women in order to access and harm them, but more a profound objection to womanhood being divorced from biology, a feeling that the whole notion of being a woman is being in some way dissed if those born male can legally become one without going through a heavy mental and physical medical process - Would that, if you're honest, be what actually fires you up about this matter?
Let me answer you.
1. I fundamentally disagree with you on the default assumption. Of course you would say that it should be the other way because your assumption is that men should get what they want and women have to argue for exceptions. I say: let's start with what women want for a change.
2. Yes I know trans people. And one who thought he was - as an adolescent - but realised he was gay instead. I have been strongly influenced by my detailed discussions on this topic by the wife of a transwoman.
3. I was opposed to Mrs May's reforms at the time. I thought then - and think now - that self-ID is an absolute disaster. A no-no. A red line. If dysphoria is a medical condition then diagnosis is essential before any legal changes affecting other people can take place.
4. I do not see what harm is caused to transwomen who retain male bodies using male facilities. The harm or risk of harm to women by having male bodies in their facilities is - and always will be - greater. When male violence against women stops then we can stop worrying about men being in female spaces.
6. I am fired up about this issue because of the risk of violence - having been a victim of it myself. I do not think men have any real understanding deep down in their bones of either how widespread male violence against women is nor how primeval the female fear of it is. But I do also feel that there is a reality to womanhood which is linked to our biology and the experiences that flow from that which is being trivialised and dismissed. Being a woman is about more than wearing a dress and high heels and make up and even cutting your penis off. Women - our realities, our lives, our experiences - are being ignored. Men are ignoring us, are telling us that they know better than we do what being a woman is (you are, lovely as you are, doing it yourself) and then accusing us of all sorts of crimes when we don't agree.
So, yes, it is existential, for me. This - more than any other single issue - will determine my vote.
The UK’s strategic realignment was not inevitable. It is to a large extent the result of how the EU conducted the Brexit talks. The EU leadership never missed an opportunity to criticise Brexit. Donald Tusk, former president of the European Council, aligned himself to the second referendum campaign in the UK.
The second mistake, even worse than the first, was the intent to force the EU’s regulatory system on the UK as a price for a free trade deal. At no point did the EU even consider what kind of strategic relationship it wanted with the UK after Brexit. The EU let anger over Brexit get in the way over rational decision-making.
The enormous cost of this stupidity is slowly becoming apparent. The UK will not flood the EU with cheap goods, as France had feared. The UK’s strategy is more subtle. It will gradually cut off from European security policy. It will also cut off from the GDPR data protection regime and financial regulation. The UK has invested more into artificial intelligence than any EU member states. It is a permanent member of the UN security council and the G7. What on earth was the EU thinking?
And no, Biden is not going intervene on the EU’s behalf in the current standoff over Northern Ireland. EU leaders have always underestimated Boris Johnson. And they always overestimated Joe Biden. A bad combination.
….
Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers. The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.
The adult version of strategic autonomy is a very serious undertaking, for which the EU is not equipped. The collective failure to understand Biden’s foreign policy and the need for an alliance with the UK is telling us that the venture has no hope of succeeding.
There's a lot of truth in that analysis: basically, you reap what you sow.
Thanks for that. There are 17 seats to be won with a 2% swing, though not all from Libs. 15 more with a further 2%. Given the huge drop in Tory support in Alberta (rampant Covid, ICU's full), which will cost a small handful of losses at most, almost all polls point to a Lib-Con overall swing in the rest of the nation as a whole. This is why I'm more bearish than most on a Liberal minority. It only takes a small polling fail, particularly in Ontario, and especially in the 905 (suburban Toronto), for a sizeable number of ridings to fall.
Wondering if the Canadian election is worth staying up for?
Do they have an exit poll?
They don't usually have an exit poll and I can't see any sign of one this time. I'm staying up for a while to see how it goes in Quebec and Ontario.
Those 2 combined pretty much determine the election don't they? Since the other provinces are either so much smaller, or simply lacking in marginals (like Alberta).
Any idea what time we'd need to stay up for to get a feel for the results in those provinces?
Any idea what time we might start to get results? Is it worth staying up for?
Polls close in Ontario in 2 hours. This is 123 of the 338 ridings, and will, as always, determine the winner. Their counting is not dissimilar to ours. But they won't count postal ballots till tomorrow. It is probably better to get up early. If it is a clear winner, then it will be apparent in the hellish small hours. If not, later. The regions don't swing together. So Party A doing very well in the early results from the Atlantic, doesn't automatically translate to Party A winning.
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.
Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.
In fairness. One is a Federal riding, the other a Provincial one. And anyways, I'm in favour. Not Makerfield. South Wigan-Sun-to Slag Heap-And a Massive Borstal Country. Why not?
Just watching this. Now there is a native French speaker with decent English. Justin Trudeau makes two!! Disclaimer. I thought I was reasonably proficient at French till I was transplanted to a Canadian High School 3 000 miles from the nearest Francophone bit. I wasn't.
Yup. Nova Scotia just had a Provincial election which resulted in an upset Tory win. Another reason I was not so sure of a Liberal win. O'Toole's strategy was pure catnip for the Atlantic. An area Trudeau had swept in 2015. And did super well in 2019 too.
As for the poster calling me transphobic, since I have repeatedly said that trans people should get the resources and help they need, the allegation is I am afraid the usual slur against any woman raising concerns.
As per my header - "Disagreements automatically become phobias; those not subscribing to current orthodoxy must be prejudiced bigots."
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.
Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.
The Sea to Sky Highway is of course an iconic road in Canada linking Vancouver to Whistler and is a fantastic journey especially as on it you know you are heading for an amazing time in Whistler.
Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.
Comments
Very best wishes. And don't forget to look after yourself too.
The last and creepiest thing you want is for an arrangement to be due to transient and potentially lame duck leader's "love" for each other.
Instead Biden and Boris are both professional enough to know that the USA and the UK are extremely close allies and are willing to set aside any ridiculous nonsense that gets people excited on Twitter.
Some people fallaciously thought that either Boris or Brexit had torched Britain's relationship with the White House. That's now comprehensively been shown to be pure BDS.
Canada:(credit viewcode)
SOME HANDY LINKS
* Live election results from Elections Canada[2]
* Election prediction from Andy_JS: don't know if kosher.[3]
* Live election results from Global News[4][5]
INTERESTING STATS
* Postal votes. Canada allows voting by mail. As of Sunday, 1,262,617 postal vote kits (aka special ballot kits) and 923,832 had been returned.[1]
* Advanced voting. Canada allows voting in person in advance. In-person voting at advance polls was higher than the last election in 2019, with approximately 5,780,000 votes cast from Sept. 10-13.[1]
Notes
* [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-day-things-to-watch-1.6181856
* [2] https://enr.elections.ca/National.aspx?lang=e
* [3] https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
* [4] https://globalnews.ca/news/8164886/live-canada-election-results-2021-real-time-results-federal-election/
* [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FplSFOFX_dw
Competent businesses paid to hedge their costs and they've got no issue now. Incompetent ones didn't and they're going out of business. That happens, bad businesses can go bust, that's not a flaw in the system.
The UK’s strategic realignment was not inevitable. It is to a large extent the result of how the EU conducted the Brexit talks. The EU leadership never missed an opportunity to criticise Brexit. Donald Tusk, former president of the European Council, aligned himself to the second referendum campaign in the UK.
The second mistake, even worse than the first, was the intent to force the EU’s regulatory system on the UK as a price for a free trade deal. At no point did the EU even consider what kind of strategic relationship it wanted with the UK after Brexit. The EU let anger over Brexit get in the way over rational decision-making.
The enormous cost of this stupidity is slowly becoming apparent. The UK will not flood the EU with cheap goods, as France had feared. The UK’s strategy is more subtle. It will gradually cut off from European security policy. It will also cut off from the GDPR data protection regime and financial regulation. The UK has invested more into artificial intelligence than any EU member states. It is a permanent member of the UN security council and the G7. What on earth was the EU thinking?
And no, Biden is not going intervene on the EU’s behalf in the current standoff over Northern Ireland. EU leaders have always underestimated Boris Johnson. And they always overestimated Joe Biden. A bad combination.
….
Over time, I would expect Nato to wither, and the transatlantic link to weaken. The EU talks about strategic autonomy, but underestimates the size and, more importantly, the nature of the task. That would require a federal political union, with a federal foreign policy and European defence force, both independent of member states. To fund it, such a federal union would require tax raising and debt issuing powers. The UK’s inevitable strategic realignment is making that task even harder because the UK used to play a critical part in European security, one that Germany will not fill.
The adult version of strategic autonomy is a very serious undertaking, for which the EU is not equipped. The collective failure to understand Biden’s foreign policy and the need for an alliance with the UK is telling us that the venture has no hope of succeeding.
I guess that is because, even though they have our system, the Provincially massively devolved nature of the country, and its sheer size, has made majorities much less common than here.
With Scotland, and the LD experience of the Coalition, maybe that is something we have coming soon?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10HM1hzw6iFJDOPlYlLuK3nTgEtT0omaCdB1I5dTbhz8/edit#gid=0
Tying 2 topics together. He didn't use English till age 18. You wouldn't know.
Any idea what time we might start to get results? Is it worth staying up for?
https://twitter.com/SecBlinken/status/1440073070694129664?s=20
1. I fundamentally disagree with you on the default assumption. Of course you would say that it should be the other way because your assumption is that men should get what they want and women have to argue for exceptions. I say: let's start with what women want for a change.
2. Yes I know trans people. And one who thought he was - as an adolescent - but realised he was gay instead. I have been strongly influenced by my detailed discussions on this topic by the wife of a transwoman.
3. I was opposed to Mrs May's reforms at the time. I thought then - and think now - that self-ID is an absolute disaster. A no-no. A red line. If dysphoria is a medical condition then diagnosis is essential before any legal changes affecting other people can take place.
4. I do not see what harm is caused to transwomen who retain male bodies using male facilities. The harm or risk of harm to women by having male bodies in their facilities is - and always will be - greater. When male violence against women stops then we can stop worrying about men being in female spaces.
6. I am fired up about this issue because of the risk of violence - having been a victim of it myself. I do not think men have any real understanding deep down in their bones of either how widespread male violence against women is nor how primeval the female fear of it is. But I do also feel that there is a reality to womanhood which is linked to our biology and the experiences that flow from that which is being trivialised and dismissed. Being a woman is about more than wearing a dress and high heels and make up and even cutting your penis off. Women - our realities, our lives, our experiences - are being ignored. Men are ignoring us, are telling us that they know better than we do what being a woman is (you are, lovely as you are, doing it yourself) and then accusing us of all sorts of crimes when we don't agree.
So, yes, it is existential, for me. This - more than any other single issue - will determine my vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Vancouver—Sunshine_Coast—Sea_to_Sky_Country
Given the huge drop in Tory support in Alberta (rampant Covid, ICU's full), which will cost a small handful of losses at most, almost all polls point to a Lib-Con overall swing in the rest of the nation as a whole.
This is why I'm more bearish than most on a Liberal minority. It only takes a small polling fail, particularly in Ontario, and especially in the 905 (suburban Toronto), for a sizeable number of ridings to fall.
Do they have an exit poll?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvEcB_3s6vA
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which is not to be confused with West Vancouver-Sea to Sky.
Because who could possibly get those two electoral districts confused by their names.
Any idea what time we'd need to stay up for to get a feel for the results in those provinces?
It is probably better to get up early. If it is a clear winner, then it will be apparent in the hellish small hours. If not, later.
The regions don't swing together. So Party A doing very well in the early results from the Atlantic, doesn't automatically translate to Party A winning.
Brandenburg an der Havel – Potsdam-Mittelmark I – Havelland III – Teltow-Fläming I
And anyways, I'm in favour.
Not Makerfield. South Wigan-Sun-to Slag Heap-And a Massive Borstal Country. Why not?
Con +12.8
Lib -4.3
Disclaimer. I thought I was reasonably proficient at French till I was transplanted to a Canadian High School 3 000 miles from the nearest Francophone bit.
I wasn't.
Last GE - Con won 4 seats
Today latest - Con leading in 8 seats
Nova Scotia just had a Provincial election which resulted in an upset Tory win. Another reason I was not so sure of a Liberal win.
O'Toole's strategy was pure catnip for the Atlantic. An area Trudeau had swept in 2015. And did super well in 2019 too.
As per my header - "Disagreements automatically become phobias; those not subscribing to current orthodoxy must be prejudiced bigots."
Like calling a district wherein it runs the Route 66 District or similar.