Next few polls will be interesting. London currently has no petrol. The ultimate reason is Johnson’s Brexit deal. If this doesn’t cut through nothing will.
Having said that, I think the beneficiaries will be the LDs. Labour are so useless at the moment, they’re incapable of taking advantage.
At times this these I reflect how fortunate we have been to avoid all that chaos with Ed Miliband. Phew.
The line still works if we had only listened to Cameron afterwards (I did not).
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
We both know that's not how this works. Any comment made at any event is fair game, as many politicians know.
I'm not disagreeing; I said she should be more careful. But there is still a difference.
Looking forward to recording all the speeches at fringe meetings at the Tory Conference. I suspect we may find some dodgy use of language there as well.
I saw the scum comment this morning and sighed. The trouble is we all suspect, deep down, that people like Rayner do think anyone not wholly committed to Labour is morally inferior and borderline evil.
The Tories may get the brunt of this but the rest of us, particularly Lib Dems like me, and the hated Blairites, have heard enough times that we’re tantamount to Tories anyway that we suspect were in the same “them” category.
Surely there’s a third way beyond dull competence vs pugnacious class war. Just a dose of optimism and humour would make such a difference.
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
We both know that's not how this works. Any comment made at any event is fair game, as many politicians know.
Yup - To be honest what I hear in that comment is someone desperately wrapping themselves in the Red Flag. "Look at me, I'm Proper Labour. I hate Tories!".
A mirror image of the people who would pretend to be from a posh private school etc....
Seems to be a feature of some who are a bit worried by how well off and middle class they look.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
This debate is so detached from reality most people don’t even understand the terms. Which is why it is such a dangerous rabbit-hole for the Left. At least in your last paragraph you show some self-awareness of this
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
Again, Labour's perspective has got to be "does this win us any extra voters" and calling Tories scum isn't going to do that. It might get a bunch of Twitter likes but it isn't going to win any votes that Labour didn't already have.
Labour's task has got to be bringing 2-3m people into their camp from the Tory camp. Calling Tories scum is going to do the opposite.
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
We both know that's not how this works. Any comment made at any event is fair game, as many politicians know.
I'm not disagreeing; I said she should be more careful. But there is still a difference.
Looking forward to recording all the speeches at fringe meetings at the Tory Conference. I suspect we may find some dodgy use of language there as well.
And I think we can assume that Rayner will be tweeting with any mis-speaks from Tory MPs, too.
Yes. Their God expects you to tell him or her how wonderful s/he is on Friday, while ours mostly listens on Sunday.
You can see how somebody from Mars might be confused. Or maybe the Martian God is a Tuesday person.
To be fair, he’s the same God so he’s just balancing his workload
What makes you think it is the same God? Clearly one or other tradition has got major aspects wrong.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God of Abraham. Muslims and Christians also share Christ as a prophet, though while Christ is the main prophet for Christians, Muhammed is the main prophet for Muslims. Jews and Christians share the Old Testament but not the new as Christ is not a prophet for Jews, that is where the main differences lie
Christians don’t believe Jesus is a prophet
He is described in the New Testament as a prophet as well as the Messiah
He’s not “the main prophet”
For Christianity effectively he is otherwise by definition it would not be Christianity but Judaism or Islam.
For Christians Christ fulfils the messianic prophecies for the Old Testament in the New Testament
He fulfils the prophecies, yes, but that’s because he’s the Son of Man not a prophet. Or even “effectively” the main prophet (what does that actually mean?)
I wouldn’t really rank prophets as it’s a binary state (you are or you aren’t one) but probably Isaiah and John the Baptist are the most significant IMV.
Muhammad is the seal of the Islamic prophets, and the final one. The Koran was literally dictated by Allah and overrides all other scripture, and Mohammad was the perfect man.
Hence the Allah of the Koran endorses war against unbelievers, execution of prisoners, etc. That is clearly not compatible with the God described in the Gospels. Anyone who thinks that they are the same has no understanding.
Islam and Christianity and Judaism all believe in the God of Abraham and share Abraham as a common patriarch.
Indeed when I went to Abraham's tomb in Hebron there was a mosque (formerly a church) and synagogue all at the cave of the patriarchs.
There is also plenty of war against non believers in the Old Testament even if the New Testament is rather more focused on peace
Yes but religion is not by descent and clearly the New Testament overrides the Old Testament in many ways. I am not denying that Mohammad sourced Abrahamic scriptures on which he claimed further revelations.
I am simply saying that to pretend that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God is wrong, and believed so by the vast majority of believers on both sides throughout history.
Now, I am very happy to work with other religions, or indeed other Christian sects, on common objectives, that doesn't mean that we believe in the same God. Incidentally, Jesus Himself did not require belief in the same God, for example the Centurion, who would be required to be a Roman Pagan.
Christianity, Judaism and Islam all believe in the same God, the God of Abraham. That is why they are the Abrahamic religions. Islam may have Muhammed as its principal prophet, Christianity has Christ as its Messiah and Judaism only believes in the Old Testament not the New. That is what makes them distinctive but they all believe in 1 God, the God of Abraham and that makes them collectively distinctive from say Hinduism too.
I like to focus on relationships to, and understandings of, the same God. In a caricature...
For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.
Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.
I incline to a Christian view.
I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.
And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
I note there's been a move in on the SPD in the markets, which honestly wasn't what I was expecting with the decent Union polls. Has that been driven by new information ?
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
If it was not meant for public consultation do not do it with the cameras on
It is being repeated on the media news programmes on the hour and if my wife's reaction is anything to go by it is very damaging
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
People will hold different views on that. However, I would point out that any girl at my local Grammar School would have faced expulsion had she found herself in that position. Ditto for any boy found to have been responsible. Both would have been held to have brought their school into disrepute.
The grammar school boy who never grew up. What a tragically stifling attitude.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Politically it’s only Labour who can have this problem.
1 Tories don’t understand what the two sides in the Trans row are actually rowing about (so bewilderingly aggressively) 2 If they did understand, they would all back what the current leaders current policy was on it anyway. 3 the New Foreign Secretary currently in secret discussions with Australia to share Britannia’s cervix.
Hence a party of government, and a party nowhere near ready for government.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
People will hold different views on that. However, I would point out that any girl at my local Grammar School would have faced expulsion had she found herself in that position. Ditto for any boy found to have been responsible. Both would have been held to have brought their school into disrepute.
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
It is just plain wrong and a very bigoted view
He should apologise
No one should have to apologise for a moral viewpoint. Most of us find it ridiculous and antiquated, maybe objectionable, but it’s not ‘bigoted’ to think pre-marital sex is wrong
Bigotry is disliking or disdaining someone for an inherent characteristic. Like homosexuality, or being Japanese
I note there's been a move in on the SPD in the markets, which honestly wasn't what I was expecting with the decent Union polls. Has that been driven by new information ?
The more recent polls decent for the CDU aren’t really all that decent. The final poll of polls have them 3 behind on 22 and their Chancellor pick way behind.
The betting angle is defeat for CDU, buy anything that says otherwise.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
It is just plain wrong and a very bigoted view
He should apologise
No one should have to apologise for a moral viewpoint. Most of us find it ridiculous and antiquated, maybe objectionable, but it’s not ‘bigoted’ to think pre-marital sex is wrong
Bigotry is disliking or disdaining someone for an inherent characteristic. Like homosexuality, or being Japanese
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
Zzzzzzzzs
Seems like a perfectly valid comment, whether you agree with it or not so why the zzzzs
You obviously haven't read the last 6 yrs of anti brexit posts
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
It is just plain wrong and a very bigoted view
He should apologise
No one should have to apologise for a moral viewpoint. Most of us find it ridiculous and antiquated, maybe objectionable, but it’s not ‘bigoted’ to think pre-marital sex is wrong
Bigotry is disliking or disdaining someone for an inherent characteristic. Like homosexuality, or being Japanese
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
Yes, I know it was asked because of the Rosie Duffield affair.
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
It is just plain wrong and a very bigoted view
He should apologise
No one should have to apologise for a moral viewpoint. Most of us find it ridiculous and antiquated, maybe objectionable, but it’s not ‘bigoted’ to think pre-marital sex is wrong
Bigotry is disliking or disdaining someone for an inherent characteristic. Like homosexuality, or being Japanese
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Trouble is that Burnham is crap.
So is Boris, but they both have a knack for publicity and communication that Starmer lacks.
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Trouble is that Burnham is crap.
On what grounds? Genuinely interested in this. Several adjectives spring to mind when I see the King in the North. Crap isn't one.
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
If it was not meant for public consultation do not do it with the cameras on
It is being repeated on the media news programmes on the hour and if my wife's reaction is anything to go by it is very damaging
Thanks Big G. I've always regarded your wife as the lodestar for the direction of Labour politics.
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I am sure that there will be greater moral outrage about this than Rayner's comments from the pb Tories......
I dont really consider myself a PB Tory, but maybe people do. I will say it, thousands wouldn't - I dont think James Gray is suitable to be next Con Leader, and has done himself no favours with these comments
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Trouble is that Burnham is crap.
On what grounds? Genuinely interested in this. Several adjectives spring to mind when I see the King in the North. Crap isn't one.
He's made a good job of being a Mayor.
That doesn't mean that is he goes back to national politics, he will do any better than he did before.
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I am sure that there will be greater moral outrage about this than Rayner's comments from the pb Tories......
I dont really consider myself a PB Tory, but maybe people do. I will say it, thousands wouldn't - I dont think James Gray is suitable to be next Con Leader, and has done himself no favours with these comments
Burnham is fine because he has little media scrutiny. Different matter if he really was under the spotlight instead of just the local rags.
He was pretty awful is his two prior leadership bids but to be fair he seems a different kettle of fish now. I think he could be very effective as leader, in making the party electable I mean, but 1) he is not an MP and 2) he has gentleman's parts.
Burnham is fine because he has little media scrutiny. Different matter if he really was under the spotlight instead of just the local rags.
He was pretty awful is his two prior leadership bids but to be fair he seems a different kettle of fish now. I think he could be very effective as leader in making the party electable but 1) he is not an MP and 2) he has gentleman's parts.
Who says he can't be a woman for the purposes of the election?
Hadn't even heard about this 'joke' - not surprised by the culprit, frankly. Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
I am sure that there will be greater moral outrage about this than Rayner's comments from the pb Tories......
I dont really consider myself a PB Tory, but maybe people do. I will say it, thousands wouldn't - I dont think James Gray is suitable to be next Con Leader, and has done himself no favours with these comments
He's one of the collection of fossilised eternal backbenchers who can be relied on to say things like this.
Marginal defence it was clearly a privately intended joke, but it was not a good one.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
Though with the various pieces of industrial relations legislation, and her promotion of manufacturers who could (a) manufacture and (b) treat their workforce like... people..
She actually moved a chunk of the working class jobs from the absolute pits (ha) they were in to the modern no-strike, arbitrated workplace, where disputes are handled by a process, and HR enforces the legal rights of the worker....
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
If it was not meant for public consultation do not do it with the cameras on
It is being repeated on the media news programmes on the hour and if my wife's reaction is anything to go by it is very damaging
Thanks Big G. I've always regarded your wife as the lodestar for the direction of Labour politics.
I did say that she is non political, did not know who Rayner was, and recoiled at the remarks
I hope you are not implying that my wife is making a political point as that is just not the case
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I had a child out of wedlock at age 21. Does that make me scum in your eyes too?
People will hold different views on that. However, I would point out that any girl at my local Grammar School would have faced expulsion had she found herself in that position. Ditto for any boy found to have been responsible. Both would have been held to have brought their school into disrepute.
I think you'll find that even grammar schools have progressed somewhat in the last half century or so.
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Trouble is that Burnham is crap.
On what grounds? Genuinely interested in this. Several adjectives spring to mind when I see the King in the North. Crap isn't one.
He's made a good job of being a Mayor.
That doesn't mean that is he goes back to national politics, he will do any better than he did before.
Boris made a poor job of being Mayor. And look at him.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
The lady's not for turning. All those "good" things will eventually turn bad and a new Thatcherite Age will emerge.
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
No fan of Labour, Gordon Brown or any of his ilk but how on earth does one blame a Government that was last in power more than a decade ago for a problem that is affecting the whole of Europe (and much of the rest of the world) and which only seems to have become an issue in the last 5 years or so?
Also not sure how you blame the EU (or by extension Brexit) for this one given they have the same issues we have.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
I tend to agree with that to quite a substantial extent, although I also agree with Sandpit and others that the fact his tone was expansive and optimistic was important. A bit of a stuck record maybe, but I think Wilson is a good model here ; a positive and optimistic message able to appeal to many groups at once, but more intellectually substantial than the high-water mark of Blairism.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
So please come and save our Xmas supply chain and then bugger off back to the EU ! Never mind that we demonized you for years and won a ref off the back of that ! Hopefully EU drivers and farmworkers will tell Bozo and the rest of the cesspit cabinet where to stick their visas !
Oh please, what a bunch of twaddle. That's just a lazy rehash of the standard political trope of 'They are attacking X, therefore they must fear X'.
Labour supporters on here did not believe that the laughter of PB Tories was genuine when Miliband and Corbyn were elected. "You really fear them." No, PB Tories really did find it amusing that Labour had elected two poor candidates, or more like one poor and one terrible.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Trouble is that Burnham is crap.
On what grounds? Genuinely interested in this. Several adjectives spring to mind when I see the King in the North. Crap isn't one.
He's made a good job of being a Mayor.
That doesn't mean that is he goes back to national politics, he will do any better than he did before.
Boris made a poor job of being Mayor. And look at him.
At the time, he was considered quite successful. YouGov did a poll just after the end of his second term in which 52% thought he did a good job.
BREXIT is the prism through which the past is changed.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
I tend to agree with that, to a quite substantial extent, although I also agree with Sandpit others that the fact his tone was positive and expansive was important. A bit of a stuck record, maybe, but I think Wilson is the good model here ; a positive and optimistic message able to appeal to many groups at once, but more intellectually substantial than the high-water mark of Blairism.
Three post-War Labour election winners. Very different personalities and politics. The common thread? Each was able to articulate a more positive and convincing outline of the future than their opponents.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
I like the idea of Thatcher spinning in her grave - that's basically a revolving dancefloor.
So please come and save our Xmas supply chain and then bugger off back to the EU ! Never mind that we demonized you for years and won a ref off the back of that ! Hopefully EU drivers and farmworkers will tell Bozo and the rest of the cesspit cabinet where to stick their visas !
Seasonal workers have been a thing for quite a few years now, and there was no indication that it was going to end with Brexit.
No fan of Labour, Gordon Brown or any of his ilk but how on earth does one blame a Government that was last in power more than a decade ago for a problem that is affecting the whole of Europe (and much of the rest of the world) and which only seems to have become an issue in the last 5 years or so?
Also not sure how you blame the EU (or by extension Brexit) for this one given they have the same issues we have.
There was someone from the European Freight Association* on the radio this morning, he actually thought the visas were a good idea but not enough. He made essentially the same point as everyone else in the industry, Covid and Brexit may have exacerbated the problem in the UK, but the primary issue was that not enough drivers were entering the profession to keep up with demand, and that pay and conditions were poor across Europe. Europe needs a lot more drivers, smarter logistics, better pay and conidtions for drivers, and probably in the medium to long term much more automation.
Rod Liddle in today's Sunday Times: the last American election was rigged against Trump.
Is it about election rigging or a thousand words of twaddle about how the liberal media is all SO against Trump the USA couldn't possibly have a fair election ?
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
The Bench of Bishops is (probably) morally superior to the Labour Party, but there are good reasons why we don't let them run the country.
Eh? They seemingly have a moral right to, and help to, run the country; blame Henry VIII and HYUFD. (But not Moderators of the Kirk, for some unaccountable reason.)
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
1) A very good and sensible point. The problem is that to a number of people "legally protected speech" = "Protected hate speech"
6) is very toxic to some in the Labour party. The revolution must be pure. Even if it consists of less than one person.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
He seemed a bit caught on the hop that the question might be asked, that is strange under preparation, given that it was an absolute certainty
Comments
Looking forward to recording all the speeches at fringe meetings at the Tory Conference. I suspect we may find some dodgy use of language there as well.
The Tories may get the brunt of this but the rest of us, particularly Lib Dems like me, and the hated Blairites, have heard enough times that we’re tantamount to Tories anyway that we suspect were in the same “them” category.
Surely there’s a third way beyond dull competence vs pugnacious class war. Just a dose of optimism and humour would make such a difference.
A mirror image of the people who would pretend to be from a posh private school etc....
Seems to be a feature of some who are a bit worried by how well off and middle class they look.
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
Labour's task has got to be bringing 2-3m people into their camp from the Tory camp. Calling Tories scum is going to do the opposite.
He should apologise
What is the environment for your grapes, limes, oranges?
And is this the Lakes or London?
For Christianity vs Islam, I'd say that the thing that key differences are incarnation (God entering his world, supremely himself as Christ) and redemption in Christianity, neither of which exist in Islam.
Which imo is why Islam sees a very distant God, and has to keep invoking "Inshallah" ("if Allah wills it"), because they don't know due to the lack of an incarnation and a model, and because of the lack of incarnation they can't be sure.
I incline to a Christian view.
I think that, coming closer to home, that is perhaps a key underlying cultural difference between the West and the Middle East - one is activist about whatever, the other more laid back and tolerating about it.
And Judaism? Sitting at the table eating a delicious lunch, whilst the others have their furious arguments with each other in the corner.
It is being repeated on the media news programmes on the hour and if my wife's reaction is anything to go by it is very damaging
1 Tories don’t understand what the two sides in the Trans row are actually rowing about (so bewilderingly aggressively)
2 If they did understand, they would all back what the current leaders current policy was on it anyway.
3 the New Foreign Secretary currently in secret discussions with Australia to share Britannia’s cervix.
Hence a party of government, and a party nowhere near ready for government.
age 21 School
Tory MP apologises for saying a 'bomb' should be planted in Labour chair Anneliese Dodds' office
James Gray made the comment on the eve of Labour Party conference in a Tory WhatsApp group
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1442029078782021634
Bigotry is disliking or disdaining someone for an inherent characteristic. Like homosexuality, or being Japanese
The betting angle is defeat for CDU, buy anything that says otherwise.
I think the only plausible Labour leader the PB Tories would really worry about is Burnham, because he might out-Boris Boris.
Your website and all that but I disagree with banning people except in extreme circs and I don't agree that justin is close to that.
It is good to see so many converts from the PB Tories to the joys of Socialism and workers power. A sinner who repents has his place in heaven.
‘Total denial of scientific fact.
And he wants to run the NHS.’
https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1442082718402154498?s=21
Unwise, perhaps. Most people are looking at this self-harming internal Left-wing debate with puzzlement, or worse. Much better to leave them to it.
He’s just nasty.
Single Market bad
Working class payrises good
State intervention in industry good
Money printing good
Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
That doesn't mean that is he goes back to national politics, he will do any better than he did before.
Marginal defence it was clearly a privately intended joke, but it was not a good one.
She actually moved a chunk of the working class jobs from the absolute pits (ha) they were in to the modern no-strike, arbitrated workplace, where disputes are handled by a process, and HR enforces the legal rights of the worker....
That is his real moral failure.
I hope you are not implying that my wife is making a political point as that is just not the case
Are you an extra from a historical drama ?
How long can it last?
‘Stating facts is not transphobic. What kind of bollocks is this???’
https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1442064787790172161?s=21
I'm calling it the Armed Cervices
They really are clueless.
Also not sure how you blame the EU (or by extension Brexit) for this one given they have the same issues we have.
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.)
2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so.
3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed.
4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear.
5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party.
6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
Many thanks in advance.
5pm BST
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1442099278307119111
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
Paddy seem to have removed the market now..
BREXIT is the prism through which the past is changed.
Each was able to articulate a more positive and convincing outline of the future than their opponents.
* Something like that.
I'll be there and be square. Natch.
Something a bit 1992ish about it all tbh.
6) is very toxic to some in the Labour party. The revolution must be pure. Even if it consists of less than one person.
IRAAAAAAAAARA!!!