@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
If the far left goes to the Greens, leading to the Centre going from Tories to Labour, then Labour wins under FPTP.
The far left, like the far right, are not votes you should want in your tent.
It isn’t just the ‘far left’. Its the ‘soft left’ 20something year old demographic which is essentially Labour’s core vote at present.
I don’t think Labour could win under FPTP with the Greens on circa 15% even if they won over some centralist Tories. Remember they’re also competing with the Lib Dems for what is essentially the same ground.
The soft left would vote Labour versus the Tories in a General Election.
The far left are a few extremist nobodies. Just like the far right.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is true at all.
There’s a good 15% of the population that you might describe as the ‘medium to hard left’ that Labour can’t win without under FPTP.
That's a huge jump. I thought they had got their outbreak under control. Next few days for them will be critical if they don't want cases to explode. Of course, at some point they are going to have to learn to live with Covid unless they are going to be in and out of lockdown and never opening up to the world.
They reduced restrictions about a week ago.
Not significantly. I saw something in NZ news saying that opening up would be really risky because modelling showed it would lead to 1000 cases a day and 54 deaths a week (*based on U.K.). Apparently they *normally* have about 500 deaths a year from flu. If those are the sort of parameters they are using to avoid opening up the country then it’s never going to happen.
And all their vaccine targets are based on really high levels (90%+) which are really unlikely (has ANYWHERE reached that level?
They are rolling out the vaccines fairly quickly now. My older relatives there are all covered.
37% now fully done, 66% had one, double what it was 6 weeks ago.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
It's a risk, but probably one that Starmer and Labour have to take.
Even on YouGov, which had the biggest Lab to Green shift, Labour have picked up as many centrist votes as they have lost harder left votes in the last 18 months. And the new pattern is probably (though we can't be sure) more useful for Labour picking up seats. Lose in Islington, gain in Ipswich.
FWIW, I wouldn't gleefully chuck the lefties out. But "This is where Labour is- and isn't going. You- even Jeremy- join us if you want. But this is how it's increasingly going to be."
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
It's a risk, but probably one that Starmer and Labour have to take.
Even on YouGov, which had the biggest Lab to Green shift, Labour have picked up as many centrist votes as they have lost harder left votes in the last 18 months. And the new pattern is probably (though we can't be sure) more useful for Labour picking up seats. Lose in Islington, gain in Ipswich.
FWIW, I wouldn't gleefully chuck the lefties out. But "This is where Labour is- and isn't going. You- even Jeremy- join us if you want. But this is how it's increasingly going to be."
You’re right but its all about vote distribution. Labour needs to win enough ‘centrists’ in the right places to counteract the possibility of ≈ 15% of its core vote possibly going elsewhere.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
If the far left goes to the Greens, leading to the Centre going from Tories to Labour, then Labour wins under FPTP.
The far left, like the far right, are not votes you should want in your tent.
It isn’t just the ‘far left’. Its the ‘soft left’ 20something year old demographic which is essentially Labour’s core vote at present.
I don’t think Labour could win under FPTP with the Greens on circa 15% even if they won over some centralist Tories. Remember they’re also competing with the Lib Dems for what is essentially the same ground.
The soft left would vote Labour versus the Tories in a General Election.
The far left are a few extremist nobodies. Just like the far right.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is true at all.
There’s a good 15% of the population that you might describe as the ‘medium to hard left’ that Labour can’t win without under FPTP.
Why would you count the medium? The medium would vote Labour.
The proof is in the pudding. The Tories expel anyone far right from the party, there are literally no far right MPs in the Conservatives. Because anyone far right is kicked out immediately. The result isn't that the Tories are split, it's that they're the natural party of government. Because the far extremists are toxic and off putting for everyone else ...
Plus they don't share your own agenda anyway. Hence why Corbyn is one of the biggest rebels in the history of the Labour Party.
In the past half century Labour have only won when Kinnock kicked out the extremists (though some unknown ones like Corbyn himself survived) and then Labour parked their tanks all over the centre. Just as the Tories do to be the natural party of government.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
If the far left goes to the Greens, leading to the Centre going from Tories to Labour, then Labour wins under FPTP.
The far left, like the far right, are not votes you should want in your tent.
It isn’t just the ‘far left’. Its the ‘soft left’ 20something year old demographic which is essentially Labour’s core vote at present.
I don’t think Labour could win under FPTP with the Greens on circa 15% even if they won over some centralist Tories. Remember they’re also competing with the Lib Dems for what is essentially the same ground.
The soft left would vote Labour versus the Tories in a General Election.
The far left are a few extremist nobodies. Just like the far right.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is true at all.
There’s a good 15% of the population that you might describe as the ‘medium to hard left’ that Labour can’t win without under FPTP.
I have several friends who were attracted to Labour by Corbyn. Not because they are ideologue lefties, they simply hadn't paid attention to politics until Magic Gandpa came along. They're telling me that Starmer isn't strong enough and the cranks need to go.
This one is very simple. If so-called progressives want a progressive government they need to vote for it. There are a choice of parties so vote for the one that can defeat the Tory. Or - radical idea - back PR. Which the Labour conference did and Starmer has rejected.
Labour cannot go on being dragged under by the Trots. Some of them will go and vote Green or Tory (cooee @bigjohnowls) or whatever, so what?
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
If the far left goes to the Greens, leading to the Centre going from Tories to Labour, then Labour wins under FPTP.
The far left, like the far right, are not votes you should want in your tent.
It isn’t just the ‘far left’. Its the ‘soft left’ 20something year old demographic which is essentially Labour’s core vote at present.
I don’t think Labour could win under FPTP with the Greens on circa 15% even if they won over some centralist Tories. Remember they’re also competing with the Lib Dems for what is essentially the same ground.
Yes, up to a point. That radical (not sure "hard left" fits as a description) Socialist Green vote is mainly in urban University constituencies. The Social Democrat left is more suburban and small towns, so more electorally significant.
I agree though that assuming voters have nowhere else to go, but will still turnout is a risky strategy.
I can't see myself voting Labour again, let alone rejoining the party.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
It's a risk, but probably one that Starmer and Labour have to take.
Even on YouGov, which had the biggest Lab to Green shift, Labour have picked up as many centrist votes as they have lost harder left votes in the last 18 months. And the new pattern is probably (though we can't be sure) more useful for Labour picking up seats. Lose in Islington, gain in Ipswich.
FWIW, I wouldn't gleefully chuck the lefties out. But "This is where Labour is- and isn't going. You- even Jeremy- join us if you want. But this is how it's increasingly going to be."
You’re right but its all about vote distribution. Labour needs to win enough ‘centrists’ in the right places to counteract the possibility of ≈ 15% of its core vote possibly going elsewhere.
Possible but definitely a risk as you highlight.
Even vox poppers in Hartlepools say they miss Blair. The ones who now vote Tory. The "centrists" are the old left. Pre-2015 the hard left went off and voted Trade Union Solidarity, or National Health Action, Socialist Unity, Socialist Labour - a host of Trot splinters that make no difference at all. Thats all they will do, splinter off. Found Corbyn's Peace and Anti-Semitism movement as a Party. Opposed by Momentum, real Momentum, True Momentum etc (splitters).
Evening all. As someone some of us remember used to say.
Topped up with petrol this evening prior to a long drive Thursday. No queue, no limit of what I could buy.
What a mess the USA is in. I suspect Trump won't be able to run again, either as a result of health problems, or legal ones
Come to that, what a mess UK is in.
Of the three petrol stations within a few miles of me, two were out of fuel today.
I did a 10-mile run in Peterborough today, whilst Mrs J's car was having its service and MOT. A few random thoughts: *) A petrol station I passed had all fuel and no queues. £30 limit on transactions. *) Peterborough isn't the prettiest places, but I managed to run three miles south to the centre on good roadside cycle paths, with no on-level road crossings. Impressive. *) Six or seven men drinking from cans of lager in various places. All alone. Quite a sad sight in the early afternoon. *) On the way back, I ran through an underpass where three youths on bikes with hoods up were smoking something a little heavy on the nose. A young woman cycled past me, saw the youths, stopped, turned around, and headed back past me.
The latter was particularly poignant. I have little fear in running or walking anywhere - I feel as though I face more danger from traffic than I do people. Yet I know female friends who are fearful of being out and about alone. It's easy for me, as a man, to forget that ...
There was a good thread on this on Twitter. Men just don't realise how scary it is for women to run or jog or walk alone at night, even in fairly safe neighbourhoods.
I confess I seldom consider it. I would walk anywhere in London alone, at any time. Sure there are sketchier places where I would be watchful, and cross the road maybe, and certainly not get a flashy iPhone out to call and browse, but yeah I would walk anywhere, at any time, in London, without too much worry
For some women they just won't go out alone after dark. That's it
The people who get angry about what to call people with or without penises / vaginas or who can use which public convenience would be better getting exercised about this inequality.
Yes indeed. And to my shame I had never properly considered it. Grown women scared to go out after dark?
I guess I generally know younger women who are more confident? - but also more likely to be attacked. Hmm
And I have usually lived in nicer neighborhoods, but still London is London, a massive world city, with a hint of edginess, everywhere
For once, the term "privilege" is justified. Male privilege means you can mostly walk out of the door at night, for a walk or a jog or some late night shopping, and feel pretty fine. Many women simply cannot do that, alone, or feel too scared to do it, either way. When you realise this - as a man - it is quite a shock
I pointed it out on earlier occasions - when German women were being attacked during NY's Eve celebrations. It is (dare I say it) one of the reasons women, some of them, anyway, value female only spaces - so they don't have to make any sort of assessment about whether a man is being simply friendly or something worse.
It is something all women learn to take account of from a young age.
Would that it were different.
I was actually thinking of you, in part, when I made these comments
You strike me as a fairly forthright and confident woman (tho of course your real persona may be very different). I can't imagine you being too scared to walk or jog around Hampstead (admittedly a pretty safe place) at 10pm or even 1am?
But are you happy to do that? Genuine question
I would not go onto the Heath at night. Would I walk around Hampstead streets at 1 am? Probably. But if I'm honest I'd probably get a taxi.
I lived in Brixton and was burgled. Early 30's. I was alone in the house asleep and the burglar came into my room. A cushion was on the floor so he could not get in and fled. I was terrified so I waited until I felt reasonably sure he had gone before calling the police. I tell this story to show that when put in a situation of danger my instinct was to do the safe thing not the brave thing.
Once in Barcelona in broad daylight some man was going round pestering the women sitting in a square. When he came to me I was so furious that I threw my cup of hot coffee all over him. He collapsed into a whingeing baby but my Spanish friends were appalled at the risk I'd taken (he could have a knife etc) whereas my blood was up and I screamed at him like an enraged fishwife.
The answer to your question is that I do take precautions depending on where I am and how known the place is to me. So I feel reasonably ok walking round Naples whereas many wouldn't. I am older so not likely to be of interest to young men. But I also know that older women are not immune from harassment and that precisely because of my age I would come off worse in any fight. That fight might not be a sexual one - just a mugging - but I am always conscious that in any physical fight I would likely come off worse. So I will try and avoid those situations.
I suspect the Heath would actually be pretty safe, simply because there's not enough foot traffic to make it interesting to a migger,
Well, not always. There have been a fair few cases of muggings as robbers know people congregate on Parliament Hill and around at night. Plus, you should ask Harry Styles - although it’s not entirely clear what he was doing around that part of the Heath at the time he was robbed…
Ah yes, there are certain parts of the Heath that are known for their... traffic...
I used to get up at about 5am and run on the Heath before going into work. I never felt concerned. But that's also because I was in the more open areas.
Where there is less... traffic.
Indeed. During the pandemic, I started running with a mate where we would run through the “main” Heath into the Extension and then through Hampstead Garden Suburb. One evening (around 6:30pm) we found ourselves running through an area that was, mmm, busy with a certain type of traffic who was giving us both a lot of attention.
Mind you, since it was two guys running together together with our dog, I guess we might have given off a…certain type of signal…
So you were dogging, just not in that way?
Taking the dog for a run. Certainly not the commonly assumed form of dogging.
Oddly, with my background I always used to connect dogging with working with loads on cranes.
Journalist to panic buyer: ‘why are people filling up?’
‘Because they’re stupid.’
Epic self awareness fail?
That is the paradox. Panic buying petrol is collectively stupid but individually sensible. The tragedy of the commons, or something. Maybe everyone defecting in a big game of prisoner's dilemma.
And wandering off the point, panic buying is sort of the wrong term because for those genuinely short of petrol, panic might be a legitimate response. A driving instructor friend said they are contacting those with tests coming up to make sure they have enough fuel.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
If the far left goes to the Greens, leading to the Centre going from Tories to Labour, then Labour wins under FPTP.
The far left, like the far right, are not votes you should want in your tent.
It isn’t just the ‘far left’. Its the ‘soft left’ 20something year old demographic which is essentially Labour’s core vote at present.
I don’t think Labour could win under FPTP with the Greens on circa 15% even if they won over some centralist Tories. Remember they’re also competing with the Lib Dems for what is essentially the same ground.
Yes, up to a point. That radical (not sure "hard left" fits as a description) Socialist Green vote is mainly in urban University constituencies. The Social Democrat left is more suburban and small towns, so more electorally significant.
I agree though that assuming voters have nowhere else to go, but will still turnout is a risky strategy.
I can't see myself voting Labour again, let alone rejoining the party.
Up here in coastal Aberdeenshire Labour barely exist. Even if I was attracted to want to rejoin once my ban hammer is lifted what would be the point as I would always be tactically voting LibDem. So I'm not arguing for Trot Off for me, its for all the people who need competent government who are stuck with Beaker and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Shapps.
This isn’t just the “hard left”. Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal wasn’t just with the “hard left” it was with younger people who don’t normally pay much attention to politics.
Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.
I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.
@RochdalePioneers there is a fear though that the Greens are an acceptable and mainstream alternative in a way that the communist party or swp are not, and thus there is a risk of the Labour left vote (which is not insignificant) going even more to the Greens which under FPTP would be disastrous.
This is not the early 90s…
It's a risk, but probably one that Starmer and Labour have to take.
Even on YouGov, which had the biggest Lab to Green shift, Labour have picked up as many centrist votes as they have lost harder left votes in the last 18 months. And the new pattern is probably (though we can't be sure) more useful for Labour picking up seats. Lose in Islington, gain in Ipswich.
FWIW, I wouldn't gleefully chuck the lefties out. But "This is where Labour is- and isn't going. You- even Jeremy- join us if you want. But this is how it's increasingly going to be."
You’re right but its all about vote distribution. Labour needs to win enough ‘centrists’ in the right places to counteract the possibility of ≈ 15% of its core vote possibly going elsewhere.
Possible but definitely a risk as you highlight.
Even vox poppers in Hartlepools say they miss Blair. The ones who now vote Tory. The "centrists" are the old left. Pre-2015 the hard left went off and voted Trade Union Solidarity, or National Health Action, Socialist Unity, Socialist Labour - a host of Trot splinters that make no difference at all. Thats all they will do, splinter off. Found Corbyn's Peace and Anti-Semitism movement as a Party. Opposed by Momentum, real Momentum, True Momentum etc (splitters).
Precisely. The extremists are utterly toxic and counterproductive.
It's not saying "they have nowhere to go" that's the mistake Mandelson made. It's saying there's a very, very tiny minority you actively do not want.
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
Yes, of course. I think though that like domestic homicide, a lot of male domestic violence is male on male. That isn't very obvious from the statistics. From what I have seen over the years in Casualty, a great deal of domestic violence is substance abuse related, both from males and females, though the stuff done with a clear head is often scarier.
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
Yes, of course. I think though that like domestic homicide, a lot of male domestic violence is male on male. That isn't very obvious from the statistics. From what I have seen over the years in Casualty, a great deal of domestic violence is substance abuse related, both from males and females, though the stuff done with a clear head is often scarier.
Why do you 'think' that, if it isn't obvious from the statistics?
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
Yes, of course. I think though that like domestic homicide, a lot of male domestic violence is male on male. That isn't very obvious from the statistics. From what I have seen over the years in Casualty, a great deal of domestic violence is substance abuse related, both from males and females, though the stuff done with a clear head is often scarier.
Why do you 'think' that, if it isn't obvious from the statistics?
Because I have just looked through your link and couldn't find them, apart from homicide figures. There is a lot of demographics of the victims, but not the perpetrators.
Evening all. As someone some of us remember used to say.
Topped up with petrol this evening prior to a long drive Thursday. No queue, no limit of what I could buy.
What a mess the USA is in. I suspect Trump won't be able to run again, either as a result of health problems, or legal ones
Come to that, what a mess UK is in.
Of the three petrol stations within a few miles of me, two were out of fuel today.
I did a 10-mile run in Peterborough today, whilst Mrs J's car was having its service and MOT. A few random thoughts: *) A petrol station I passed had all fuel and no queues. £30 limit on transactions. *) Peterborough isn't the prettiest places, but I managed to run three miles south to the centre on good roadside cycle paths, with no on-level road crossings. Impressive. *) Six or seven men drinking from cans of lager in various places. All alone. Quite a sad sight in the early afternoon. *) On the way back, I ran through an underpass where three youths on bikes with hoods up were smoking something a little heavy on the nose. A young woman cycled past me, saw the youths, stopped, turned around, and headed back past me.
The latter was particularly poignant. I have little fear in running or walking anywhere - I feel as though I face more danger from traffic than I do people. Yet I know female friends who are fearful of being out and about alone. It's easy for me, as a man, to forget that ...
There was a good thread on this on Twitter. Men just don't realise how scary it is for women to run or jog or walk alone at night, even in fairly safe neighbourhoods.
I confess I seldom consider it. I would walk anywhere in London alone, at any time. Sure there are sketchier places where I would be watchful, and cross the road maybe, and certainly not get a flashy iPhone out to call and browse, but yeah I would walk anywhere, at any time, in London, without too much worry
For some women they just won't go out alone after dark. That's it
The people who get angry about what to call people with or without penises / vaginas or who can use which public convenience would be better getting exercised about this inequality.
Yes indeed. And to my shame I had never properly considered it. Grown women scared to go out after dark?
I guess I generally know younger women who are more confident? - but also more likely to be attacked. Hmm
And I have usually lived in nicer neighborhoods, but still London is London, a massive world city, with a hint of edginess, everywhere
For once, the term "privilege" is justified. Male privilege means you can mostly walk out of the door at night, for a walk or a jog or some late night shopping, and feel pretty fine. Many women simply cannot do that, alone, or feel too scared to do it, either way. When you realise this - as a man - it is quite a shock
I pointed it out on earlier occasions - when German women were being attacked during NY's Eve celebrations. It is (dare I say it) one of the reasons women, some of them, anyway, value female only spaces - so they don't have to make any sort of assessment about whether a man is being simply friendly or something worse.
It is something all women learn to take account of from a young age.
Would that it were different.
I was actually thinking of you, in part, when I made these comments
You strike me as a fairly forthright and confident woman (tho of course your real persona may be very different). I can't imagine you being too scared to walk or jog around Hampstead (admittedly a pretty safe place) at 10pm or even 1am?
But are you happy to do that? Genuine question
I would not go onto the Heath at night. Would I walk around Hampstead streets at 1 am? Probably. But if I'm honest I'd probably get a taxi.
I lived in Brixton and was burgled. Early 30's. I was alone in the house asleep and the burglar came into my room. A cushion was on the floor so he could not get in and fled. I was terrified so I waited until I felt reasonably sure he had gone before calling the police. I tell this story to show that when put in a situation of danger my instinct was to do the safe thing not the brave thing.
Once in Barcelona in broad daylight some man was going round pestering the women sitting in a square. When he came to me I was so furious that I threw my cup of hot coffee all over him. He collapsed into a whingeing baby but my Spanish friends were appalled at the risk I'd taken (he could have a knife etc) whereas my blood was up and I screamed at him like an enraged fishwife.
The answer to your question is that I do take precautions depending on where I am and how known the place is to me. So I feel reasonably ok walking round Naples whereas many wouldn't. I am older so not likely to be of interest to young men. But I also know that older women are not immune from harassment and that precisely because of my age I would come off worse in any fight. That fight might not be a sexual one - just a mugging - but I am always conscious that in any physical fight I would likely come off worse. So I will try and avoid those situations.
I suspect the Heath would actually be pretty safe, simply because there's not enough foot traffic to make it interesting to a migger,
Well, not always. There have been a fair few cases of muggings as robbers know people congregate on Parliament Hill and around at night. Plus, you should ask Harry Styles - although it’s not entirely clear what he was doing around that part of the Heath at the time he was robbed…
Ah yes, there are certain parts of the Heath that are known for their... traffic...
I used to get up at about 5am and run on the Heath before going into work. I never felt concerned. But that's also because I was in the more open areas.
Where there is less... traffic.
Indeed. During the pandemic, I started running with a mate where we would run through the “main” Heath into the Extension and then through Hampstead Garden Suburb. One evening (around 6:30pm) we found ourselves running through an area that was, mmm, busy with a certain type of traffic who was giving us both a lot of attention.
Mind you, since it was two guys running together together with our dog, I guess we might have given off a…certain type of signal…
So you were dogging, just not in that way?
Taking the dog for a run. Certainly not the commonly assumed form of dogging.
Oddly, with my background I always used to connect dogging with working with loads on cranes.
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
Yes, of course. I think though that like domestic homicide, a lot of male domestic violence is male on male. That isn't very obvious from the statistics. From what I have seen over the years in Casualty, a great deal of domestic violence is substance abuse related, both from males and females, though the stuff done with a clear head is often scarier.
Why do you 'think' that, if it isn't obvious from the statistics?
Because I have just looked through your link and couldn't find them, apart from homicide figures. There is a lot of demographics of the victims, but not the perpetrators.
Why does it matter? If there is some view that women are incapable of violence, then that is darned wrong - as I know from personal experience.
Is there any evidence that the streets of Britain are becoming less safe for women?
@Andy_JS As you have pointed out, statistically most attacks are on men. However, there is a change in social attitudes, a desire to assuage womens fears about safety.
Quite where this will lead is an interesting question, but I would guess it is most likely to lead us down the route of calls for permanent real time surveillance of the public sphere (ie facial recognition CCTV), and the creation of more criminal offences related specifically to the harrassment of (people who identify as) women.
Hang on...
You are making the assumption that women are less likely to be attacked than men. That is not necessarily a safe conclusion to make. What if men were 10x more likely to walk on their own through town at night?
That is a very interesting point. I don't know and I am very happy to stand corrected if such evidence exists. However, as far as I can see, no one has disputed (or really even responded to) the posters original point that 83 out of 96 murders were of men.
I think my point about social attitudes changing really holds true irrespective of the statistical position, and this is reflected in policy. For instance, already we have seen, in the last decade, significant new legislation on domestic violence.
And not a single one of those 86 got 1/10th of the publicity that Sabina Nessa's terrible murder has, indeed I wonder if they got as much publicity in cumulo.
I of course applaud the rising intolerance of violence towards women, I just wish violence towards men was not so far behind.
A third of domestic violence is against men (1). This does not get anywhere near the coverage that domestic violence against women gets, and mentioning it should not, and does not, diminish violence against women.
Though in half the cases of domestic homicide, the perpetrator was also male.
Yes, but homicide is a different, albeit important, metric. The fact remains that men are significantly at risk from domestic violence, and a better understanding of it might lend us a better understanding of the violence in our society.
Yes, of course. I think though that like domestic homicide, a lot of male domestic violence is male on male. That isn't very obvious from the statistics. From what I have seen over the years in Casualty, a great deal of domestic violence is substance abuse related, both from males and females, though the stuff done with a clear head is often scarier.
Why do you 'think' that, if it isn't obvious from the statistics?
Because I have just looked through your link and couldn't find them, apart from homicide figures. There is a lot of demographics of the victims, but not the perpetrators.
Why does it matter? If there is some view that women are incapable of violence, then that is darned wrong - as I know from personal experience.
Well as quite obvious from half of domestic homicides being male on male, the other half are not. So I did not claim that women are incapable of violence, just that it is much less common than male violence, or at least less lethal.
Comments
There’s a good 15% of the population that you might describe as the ‘medium to hard left’ that Labour can’t win without under FPTP.
37% now fully done, 66% had one, double what it was 6 weeks ago.
Even on YouGov, which had the biggest Lab to Green shift, Labour have picked up as many centrist votes as they have lost harder left votes in the last 18 months. And the new pattern is probably (though we can't be sure) more useful for Labour picking up seats. Lose in Islington, gain in Ipswich.
FWIW, I wouldn't gleefully chuck the lefties out. But "This is where Labour is- and isn't going. You- even Jeremy- join us if you want. But this is how it's increasingly going to be."
Possible but definitely a risk as you highlight.
The proof is in the pudding. The Tories expel anyone far right from the party, there are literally no far right MPs in the Conservatives. Because anyone far right is kicked out immediately. The result isn't that the Tories are split, it's that they're the natural party of government. Because the far extremists are toxic and off putting for everyone else ...
Plus they don't share your own agenda anyway. Hence why Corbyn is one of the biggest rebels in the history of the Labour Party.
In the past half century Labour have only won when Kinnock kicked out the extremists (though some unknown ones like Corbyn himself survived) and then Labour parked their tanks all over the centre. Just as the Tories do to be the natural party of government.
This one is very simple. If so-called progressives want a progressive government they need to vote for it. There are a choice of parties so vote for the one that can defeat the Tory. Or - radical idea - back PR. Which the Labour conference did and Starmer has rejected.
Labour cannot go on being dragged under by the Trots. Some of them will go and vote Green or Tory (cooee @bigjohnowls) or whatever, so what?
I agree though that assuming voters have nowhere else to go, but will still turnout is a risky strategy.
I can't see myself voting Labour again, let alone rejoining the party.
Although given that both may involve liberal use of slings and he delivery of heavy loads, perhaps there is some commonality...
And wandering off the point, panic buying is sort of the wrong term because for those genuinely short of petrol, panic might be a legitimate response. A driving instructor friend said they are contacting those with tests coming up to make sure they have enough fuel.
Those people will generally vote green without a second thought to tactical voting. Voting Green has none of the stigma that voting SWP (or even UKIP) would have and that’s why its a threat to the Labour Party.
I would love the far left to be chucked out, and maybe it’s worth the risk as @Stuartinromford says, but to pretend that there are no downsides for Labour is difficult.
It's not saying "they have nowhere to go" that's the mistake Mandelson made. It's saying there's a very, very tiny minority you actively do not want.