It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Here we go again.
Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
What's hate-filled about it?
When women are being told people with a penis must be allowed in women's only prisons and shelters, and when lesbians are being told that not wanting to have sex with people with a penis is a 'cotton ceiling' discrimination then maybe just maybe things are going too far?
No-one is entitled to have sex let alone demand that they should get it from certain types of people. Claiming that a lesbian is transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with a penis is absurd and insulting. It is also, bluntly, homophobic because it seeks to deny the reality of that person's sexuality.
It is also rather reminiscent of what used to happen when I was younger - men claiming that women were only lesbians because they had not had sex with the right sort of man yet, "right sort of man" being the oaf making the claim of course.
Repellent then. Repellent now.
There is indeed something rather "hateful" about attacking lesbians in such a way.
Its interesting to think whether this proposal really is for the people of Northern Ireland and whether they support it, or not.
The EU's negotiations in the past have already had the backing of the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, its the Unionists they need to win around. If this proposal wins the support of the UUP, DUP, TUV etc then this is absolutely a significant change and the government should accept this and put it to bed.
If it does not, then its a failure.
What happens if only the DUP and its congeners support it, and all other parties reject it? That's what I'm not clear about.
That's a good question. I suppose that's up for negotiations then isn't it?
I think its more likely they'll all oppose it, or all accept it though. Because they have the same objections at the minute - and the question isn't whether the EU have been "generous" in its proposal, its whether they have satisfied the Unionists objections or not.
When the researchers used a new formula for calculating the rapid test's accuracy, they found LFTs were more than 80% effective at detecting any level of Covid-19 infection and likely to be more than 90% effective at detecting who is most infectious when they use the test.
So LFTS aren't a waste of time and money, nor woefully inaccurate.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Here we go again.
Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
What's hate-filled about it?
When women are being told people with a penis must be allowed in women's only prisons and shelters, and when lesbians are being told that not wanting to have sex with people with a penis is a 'cotton ceiling' discrimination then maybe just maybe things are going too far?
No-one is entitled to have sex let alone demand that they should get it from certain types of people. Claiming that a lesbian is transphobic for not wanting to have sex with someone with a penis is absurd and insulting. It is also, bluntly, homophobic because it seeks to deny the reality of that person's sexuality.
It is also rather reminiscent of what used to happen when I was younger - men claiming that women were only lesbians because they had not had sex with the right sort of man yet, "right sort of man" being the oaf making the claim of course.
Repellent then. Repellent now.
There is indeed something rather "hateful" about attacking lesbians in such a way.
Exactly.
What is the difference between a "queer trans woman" wanting a lesbian to sleep with them, and a "straight man" wanting the same?
Its up to the woman to decide who she is attracted to and who she wants to be with, and if she's not attracted to men then she won't be attracted to either of them and that isn't transphobic to say.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
But no-one - and not the VC - has stated that she has done anything contrary to the University's policies. It is the fact that she has views which some people disagree with which seems to be the cause of personal threats against her, threats so serious that the police have had to get involved. This is wrong. Students too have obligations and I'm pretty sure that one of them involves not threatening those who teach them. The criminal law has something to say about that too.
If you'd watched University Challenge this week, you'd have seen Sussex University students score a paltry 10 points. They knew virtually nothing. So maybe the problem is with the students in that august institution..........
At least half those Greens are midterm Labour voters on strike.
True GE positions are Labour 35-36% and Conservatives 39-40% atm, IMHO.
Possibly.
But where they are is as important as how many there are.
Voters going back and forth between Labour and Green in London, Brighton, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge and so on has not much effect on number of MPs elected.
Indeed.
And there will also be Conservatives (pensioners especially after the triple lock suspension) that will be saying they won't vote but probably will in the end.
A lot of the voter churn eventually evens out on the day.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
But no-one - and not the VC - has stated that she has done anything contrary to the University's policies. It is the fact that she has views which some people disagree with which seems to be the cause of personal threats against her, threats so serious that the police have had to get involved. This is wrong. Students too have obligations and I'm pretty sure that one of them involves not threatening those who teach them. The criminal law has something to say about that too.
If you'd watched University Challenge this week, you'd have seen Sussex University students score a paltry 10 points. They knew virtually nothing. So maybe the problem is with the students in that august institution..........
I got more points than Sussex Uni on that particular episode..
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.
It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.
That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.
However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.
Without a functioning economy, people also die. It's not a case of 'a few covid deaths so we can sit in our hut tubs quaffing champagne'. We rather need a functioning economy to keep people alive, and educate people, and do all the other things the state does. Money is not a luxury.
Mask wearing and restricting indoor gathering are not cost free. If you force people to wear masks or to be outside in order to do certain things, fewer of them will do those things. And less economy will happen as a result.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
Especially one whose reputation is being traduced and views mis-represented.
Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.
It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.
That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.
However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.
Most have been double jabbed now, better for individuals now to decide on their own level of risk and how cautious they wish to be not the government
Yes. Chinese flu is here forever. We just have to learn to live with it as best we can, as we do with several hundred other infectious vriuses. That involves everybody getting vaccinated.
In my opnion Hancock was given the boot far too late.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
Also, this time two years ago I gave zero fucks about the coronavirus family of viruses. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
YouGov remains a mystery. It isn't that this poll is much out of line with their recent findings. It is that their polls are developing a consistency of being out of line with everyone else. And, as ever, it is their low Labour score which makes the difference. Hmm. I don't know.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
I didn't say it was disgusting, you did.
Which of her oeuvre is your favourite, Some Reflections on Seeing-as, Metaphor-Grasping and Imagining, or perhaps Fictive Utterance and Imagining?
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
Especially one whose reputation is being traduced and views mis-represented.
Exactly - she should go and do some knitting for her husband, like a proper woman.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
That depends upon the nature of the organisation. If, for example, I worked for the Labour party, it would be reasonable for my employer to insist that I should not criticise Labour in public.
Academics, on the other hand, ought to be free to express any opinion, more or less, so long as they aren't breaking any laws by doing so, and so long as they aren't breaching the duties that their employer can reasonably expect of them.
I'll take an extreme case to illustrate my point. Does a lecturer have the right to belong to the British National Party? Yes. IMHO. Does he have the right to refuse to teach black students, or discriminate against them? No. It's his duty to teach such students, and to act fairly towards them.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Who you want to have sex with is 100% private domain. It shouldn't be part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination. Homophobia is fear & loathing of homosexuals. Transphobia is fear and loathing of transgender people. In both cases it is typically expressed via mockery or insinuation that they are perverted and dangerous. The big difference is homophobia is these days fringe and frowned upon whereas transphobia is widespread and mainstream.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Here we go again.
Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
What is hate-filled about wanting people to be free to love the people they want to love without being attacked for it?
I was trying to work that out. Dundee East would certainly include Carnoustie and all the villages between Monifieth and Carnoustie. That is not unreasonable since they are all pretty much contiguous these days. Going to Arbroath, however, would be exceptional and I really don't see how it would leave Angus big enough.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Who you want to have sex with is 100% private domain. It shouldn't be part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination. Homophobia is fear & loathing of homosexuals. Transphobia is fear and loathing of transgender people. In both cases it is typically expressed via mockery or insinuation that they are perverted and dangerous. The big difference is homophobia is these days fringe and frowned upon whereas transphobia is widespread and mainstream.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Who you want to have sex with is 100% private domain. It shouldn't be part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination. Homophobia is fear & loathing of homosexuals. Transphobia is fear and loathing of transgender people. In both cases it is typically expressed via mockery or insinuation that they are perverted and dangerous. The big difference is homophobia is these days fringe and frowned upon whereas transphobia is widespread and mainstream.
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
I didn't say it was disgusting, you did.
You seemed to imply that there was something wrong in her publicising her book.
Academics live in the public fora. And have done since academics were invented.
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
Sunak, then Truss, then Davison.
If only so I can collect £5020 from Sunak getting the job.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Who you want to have sex with is 100% private domain. It shouldn't be part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination. Homophobia is fear & loathing of homosexuals. Transphobia is fear and loathing of transgender people. In both cases it is typically expressed via mockery or insinuation that they are perverted and dangerous. The big difference is homophobia is these days fringe and frowned upon whereas transphobia is widespread and mainstream.
Is a man not wanting to have sex with a transsexual 100% private domain and not part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination, or transphobic?
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
Who you want to have sex with is 100% private domain. It shouldn't be part of a debate on prejudice and discrimination. Homophobia is fear & loathing of homosexuals. Transphobia is fear and loathing of transgender people. In both cases it is typically expressed via mockery or insinuation that they are perverted and dangerous. The big difference is homophobia is these days fringe and frowned upon whereas transphobia is widespread and mainstream.
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
I agree. It is beyond disgusting that an academic should try to publish a book and draw attention to it.
I didn't say it was disgusting, you did.
You seemed to imply that there was something wrong in her publicising her book.
Academics live in the public fora. And have done since academics were invented.
Ah, 'seemed to imply'; a watery excuse for straw manning, if there ever is an excuse.
I was more than implying that there are certain people (I think on both sides as it happens) in this debate who revel in the attention and who are over fond of the sound of their own voice. That they're picked up by reactionaries on the relentless search for wedge issues is an unattractive side issue.
I was trying to work that out. Dundee East would certainly include Carnoustie and all the villages between Monifieth and Carnoustie. That is not unreasonable since they are all pretty much contiguous these days. Going to Arbroath, however, would be exceptional and I really don't see how it would leave Angus big enough.
Not an expert, but you can see the proposals in full here.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Accusing booksellers of being cowards for not putting your book in their windows via twitter is an exciting new development in marketing.
YouGov are kind of outliers, but they only have Labour losing a point or two to the Lib Dem’s and Greens compared to this weeks R&W and Survation, so not really implausible
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 43-45 (assuming Survation have Reform on 4)
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
But no-one - and not the VC - has stated that she has done anything contrary to the University's policies. It is the fact that she has views which some people disagree with which seems to be the cause of personal threats against her, threats so serious that the police have had to get involved. This is wrong. Students too have obligations and I'm pretty sure that one of them involves not threatening those who teach them. The criminal law has something to say about that too.
If you'd watched University Challenge this week, you'd have seen Sussex University students score a paltry 10 points. They knew virtually nothing. So maybe the problem is with the students in that august institution..........
I got more points than Sussex Uni on that particular episode..
So one outdoor event in late October is ok, but another (spread over a larger area) in January is not?
On 23 October, Diwali celebrations will return to London with a live hybrid event in Trafalgar Square Party popper
As always, you can expect an incredible display of lights and a packed schedule of entertainment. Come join us in person, or watch it virtually at home. More info:
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
The Tories would lose far more votes, especially in London and the Home Counties, from increasing the rate of inheritance tax and lowering the threshold the estates of married couples pay it than they have from just increasing NI.
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid. Unlike you I understand who the Tory core vote is ie home owners, their heirs and pensioners. Even in 2019 employees narrowly voted Labour despite the Tory win overall.
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
What about this afternoon?
Mask anecdata: Cycled to work this morning (hooray! in the office!) through the Manchester university area. Almost every east-Asian-looking student wearing a mask (just walking down the street). Almost no not-east-Asian-looking students wearing them. Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I was trying to work that out. Dundee East would certainly include Carnoustie and all the villages between Monifieth and Carnoustie. That is not unreasonable since they are all pretty much contiguous these days. Going to Arbroath, however, would be exceptional and I really don't see how it would leave Angus big enough.
Not an expert, but you can see the proposals in full here.
It seems Angus gains some bits from both Dundee seats.
Thanks. I don't think we are gaining anything from the Dundee seats but we are gaining a largish chunk of Perth and Kinross, all the way to Scone. Dundee east is being extended as far north as Lunan bay which seems a bit absurd. It is also a bit silly to suggest that Scone is not effectively a part of Perth these days.
YouGov are kind of outliers, but they only have Labour losing a point or two to the Lib Dem’s and Greens compared to this weeks R&W and Survation, so not really implausible
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 44-45
Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.
It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.
That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.
However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.
I think @Malmesbury's point is worth remembering - we are testing at a far higher rate than most other nations, including asymptomatic testing. We are finding many more cases, partly because we are looking.
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
Openly LGBT of course.
I think that you can sail quite close to the wind on that one, given that he is dead.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
The Tories would lose far more votes, especially in London and the Home Counties, from increasing the rate of inheritance tax and lowering the threshold the estates of married couples pay it than they have from just increasing NI.
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid
You are truly a little Englander and if you think the red wall support your desire to avoid IHT through a million pound exemption then you are living in a fools paradise
HMG governs for the whole of the UK and right now it needs urgently to address fairness in taxation, not provide for million pound inheritance tax free
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
What about this afternoon?
Mask anecdata: Cycled to work this morning (hooray! in the office!) through the Manchester university area. Almost every east-Asian-looking student wearing a mask (just walking down the street). Almost no not-east-Asian-looking students wearing them. Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I haven't seen definitive figures but there seems to be a bigger drop in new students from Asia than there is of those not completing their existing courses. Hopefully temporary. It is one of our more successful export industries.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
It's the sort of book that would only appear in the window of a leftie bookseller - of which there simply isn't the number of shops that there used to be.
I was trying to work that out. Dundee East would certainly include Carnoustie and all the villages between Monifieth and Carnoustie. That is not unreasonable since they are all pretty much contiguous these days. Going to Arbroath, however, would be exceptional and I really don't see how it would leave Angus big enough.
Not an expert, but you can see the proposals in full here.
It seems Angus gains some bits from both Dundee seats.
Thanks. I don't think we are gaining anything from the Dundee seats but we are gaining a largish chunk of Perth and Kinross, all the way to Scone. Dundee east is being extended as far north as Lunan bay which seems a bit absurd. It is also a bit silly to suggest that Scone is not effectively a part of Perth these days.
I don't envy these people their job.
Yep. It is tough, particularly in Scotland to achieve the tightened quotas without ward splitting, given you tend to have bigger wards due to STV. My impression was they threaded the needle fairly well in my area. Had expected it to be much more controversial in England tbh.
Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.
It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.
That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.
However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.
I think @Malmesbury's point is worth remembering - we are testing at a far higher rate than most other nations, including asymptomatic testing. We are finding many more cases, partly because we are looking.
What I still find surprising is that more countries are not running ONS style population surveys.
It doesn't take much in the way of resources. And provides a number that would actually be comparable across nations, and would be extremely useful for the WHO
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
The Tories would lose far more votes, especially in London and the Home Counties, from increasing the rate of inheritance tax and lowering the threshold the estates of married couples pay it than they have from just increasing NI.
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid
You are truly a little Englander and if you think the red wall support your desire to avoid IHT through a million pound exemption then you are living in a fools paradise
HMG governs for the whole of the UK and right now it needs urgently to address fairness in taxation, not 0rovide for million pound inheritance tax free
The RedWall have got Brexit and lower immigration which they wanted and are getting more infrastructure investment (and even some RedWall properties would be hit by lowering the threshold for IHT as well as large numbers of properties in the BlueWall).
If you are so desperate for unTory wealth taxes and inheritance tax rises off to Starmer Labour with you.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Oh, I wish That sounds much more fun than what we actually do.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
It is odd. It doesn't feel as if the Tories should be doing this well. Anecdotal of course, but everyone I encounter in the South East these days seems to think that Boris is an absolute arse and his government hopeless. This from people whom I would have put down as Tory at any other point in recent history. So is the polling broken, with too much weight being given to the Red Wall mavericks?
It may be the Tories are just more well regarded, compared to alternatives, than it feels should be the case.
The other option is that polling essentially hasn't caught up yet. That sounds stupid - perhaps it is - but I keep going back to early 2019 and a period of consistent Tory leads even as May was completely paralysed by internal divisions and it seemed crisis was everywhere. Eventually the polling collapsed, but seemed well after it should have when the government was in freefall, as if the cumulative effect had finally taken hold.
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
What about this afternoon?
Mask anecdata: Cycled to work this morning (hooray! in the office!) through the Manchester university area. Almost every east-Asian-looking student wearing a mask (just walking down the street). Almost no not-east-Asian-looking students wearing them. Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I was expecting that too. Doesn’t appear to have happened here in Newcastle either. Similarly on the masks too.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Oh, I wish That sounds much more fun than what we actually do.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
YouGov are kind of outliers, but they only have Labour losing a point or two to the Lib Dem’s and Greens compared to this weeks R&W and Survation, so not really implausible
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 44-45
…
The SNP are down 2 in this poll to 4%
We had the joy of the sub sample in full earlier. Low SNP, high Tory score.
YouGov are kind of outliers, but they only have Labour losing a point or two to the Lib Dem’s and Greens compared to this weeks R&W and Survation, so not really implausible
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 44-45
…
The SNP are down 2 in this poll to 4%
We had the joy of the sub sample in full earlier. Low SNP, high Tory score.
I don't think it will be decisive in Boris's decision about Indyref2 somehow.
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
The Tories would lose far more votes, especially in London and the Home Counties, from increasing the rate of inheritance tax and lowering the threshold the estates of married couples pay it than they have from just increasing NI.
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid
You are truly a little Englander and if you think the red wall support your desire to avoid IHT through a million pound exemption then you are living in a fools paradise
HMG governs for the whole of the UK and right now it needs urgently to address fairness in taxation, not 0rovide for million pound inheritance tax free
The RedWall have got Brexit and lower immigration which they wanted and are getting more infrastructure investment (and even some RedWall properties would be hit by lowering the threshold for IHT as well as large numbers of properties in the BlueWall).
If you are so desperate for unTory wealth taxes and inheritance tax rises off to Starmer Labour with you.
You may have to do a reverse ferret (which you are very good at) after Rishi budget on both changes in IHT and CGT, there is nowhere else to go and fairness has to be front and centre of his budget
As for banning my conservative vote you may succeed if the conservatives do not create a fairness in the tax system
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago?
People are only supposed to comment on things they were always historically aware or interested in? Does not being so undermine any current commentary in some way?
I'm not sure I follow what point you are making, as I assume its not that.
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
What about this afternoon?
Mask anecdata: Cycled to work this morning (hooray! in the office!) through the Manchester university area. Almost every east-Asian-looking student wearing a mask (just walking down the street). Almost no not-east-Asian-looking students wearing them. Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I was expecting that too. Doesn’t appear to have happened here in Newcastle either. Similarly on the masks too.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
Depends what you mean by "anti trans". The Stonewall view is that fighting for the inclusion & acceptance rights of gender-non-conforming and sexuality-non-conforming minorities goes together. Same basic argument for (one largely won, one very much in play) and certain similar prejudices against to be overcome. That's their view. Some disagree and LGB Alliance were formed to take the gender aspect out of it. So not so much "anti trans" and "without trans". However in practice much of their campaigning & rhetoric is about transpeople and the transgender issue, and it tends to be relentlessly negative to the notion of more inclusivity. So in this sense "anti trans" isn't a wholly inaccurate label for the LGB Alliance, and it does (sadly) fit the bill for some of those most active in and around it.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Oh, I wish That sounds much more fun than what we actually do.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.
Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.
I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
What about this afternoon?
Mask anecdata: Cycled to work this morning (hooray! in the office!) through the Manchester university area. Almost every east-Asian-looking student wearing a mask (just walking down the street). Almost no not-east-Asian-looking students wearing them. Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I was expecting that too. Doesn’t appear to have happened here in Newcastle either. Similarly on the masks too.
Grandson is at Manchester. Must ask him.
We're back to normal this year, pretty much. I don't think we actually lost that many last year, either - some just did remote learning like everyone else.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
Depends what you mean by "anti trans".
I think that is the main area of dispute. Far too many are lumped together in that label, devaluing it by treating anyone not on board with a very specific agenda (however worthy) as being the same as someone against the very idea of trans. The impression given is one side believes it alone determines who is anti trans, when the range of views is too wide for that. Pretty much anyone who acts like it is simple, end of, goes that way.
That's quite revealing. They've clearly made some major concessions - that they previously said were impossible - but cannot bear any of that being attributed to Frost or London.
For my part, I don't mind how they rationalise it to themselves either - so long as it smooths the GB-NI border in a pragmatic way and ends the dispute.
I hope the detail of the EU's proposals match up to the headlines, that the UK doesn't overplay its hand, and a permanent deal is quickly done.
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Oh, I wish That sounds much more fun than what we actually do.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
Try our luck selling the second one at a significant premium on RRP?
(The 'no cover image available' image actually looks quite apt to me. Are these your memoirs from your days as a bailiff?)
No, the cover was very dull with various greys and blacks and a quill or something imaginative like that. It was a book that set out how to recover debts in Scotland as the law stood in 2001 that I wrote in my spare time whilst I was training for the bar. Unfortunately the law has changed rather a lot since then and I am too busy to do an update.
I have never had a job as a bailiff but spent 15 years in debt actions (amongst many others thankfully) as a solicitor.
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
Openly LGBT of course.
I think that you can sail quite close to the wind on that one, given that he is dead.
I'm not starting that argument again but let's just say that at least 2 19th century Prime Ministers were widely rumoured to be homosexual during their lifetimes. (One of them had kids, so answers as to whether that makes you bi on a postcard please)
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
Depends what you mean by "anti trans". The Stonewall view is that fighting for the inclusion & acceptance rights of gender-non-conforming and sexuality-non-conforming minorities goes together. Same basic argument for (one largely won, one very much in play) and certain similar prejudices against to be overcome. That's their view. Some disagree and LGB Alliance were formed to take the gender aspect out of it. So not so much "anti trans" and "without trans". However in practice much of their campaigning & rhetoric is about transpeople and the transgender issue, and it tends to be relentlessly negative to the notion of more inclusivity. So in this sense "anti trans" isn't a wholly inaccurate label for the LGB Alliance, and it does (sadly) fit the bill for some of those most active in and around it.
L and G are about sex and sexual attraction though.
Should lesbians be free to say to say they would not have sex with someone with a penis?
Should lesbians be free to say they're sexually attracted to women, by which they mean people who are women sexually?
That's quite revealing. They've clearly made some major concessions - that they previously said were impossible - but cannot bear any of that being attributed to Frost or London.
For my part, I don't mind how they rationalise it to themselves either - so long as it smooths the GB-NI border in a pragmatic way and ends the dispute.
I hope the detail of the EU's proposals match up to the headlines, that the UK doesn't overplay its hand, and a permanent deal is quickly done.
YouGov are kind of outliers, but they only have Labour losing a point or two to the Lib Dem’s and Greens compared to this weeks R&W and Survation, so not really implausible
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 44-45
…
The SNP are down 2 in this poll to 4%
We had the joy of the sub sample in full earlier. Low SNP, high Tory score.
Scottish subsamples don't get enough coverage on here. A bit like Brexit.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
A good point also applicable to the LDs.
And, of course, to the Conservatives. They stand for nothing, at least not on a permanent basis - but this is done deliberately so that they can win elections.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
That depends upon the nature of the organisation. If, for example, I worked for the Labour party, it would be reasonable for my employer to insist that I should not criticise Labour in public.
Academics, on the other hand, ought to be free to express any opinion, more or less, so long as they aren't breaking any laws by doing so, and so long as they aren't breaching the duties that their employer can reasonably expect of them.
I'll take an extreme case to illustrate my point. Does a lecturer have the right to belong to the British National Party? Yes. IMHO. Does he have the right to refuse to teach black students, or discriminate against them? No. It's his duty to teach such students, and to act fairly towards them.
Thanks. I'm left mulling the practicalities of the extreme example - for instance how one might demonstrate that one had not discriminated against X, despite being a member of an organization that advocated such discrimination.
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be?
Kia Ceed.
tories = 1954 Austin Champ painted for WW2 reenactment. Possible blown head gasket.
LibDem = Bus pass
Greens = BMW i4 M50 in San Remo Green
SNP = Argyll Turbo GT
Kia Ceed? Never heard of it. Had to look it up.
That's the problem.
I drive a Kia Ceed.
Its an extremely reliable and well built car. It was one of the first cars to offer a seven year warranty instead of a three year one. I've owned mine for 11 years now, have done 80,000 miles on it, and it still drives pretty much as good as new. I see no reason to replace it until I can replace it with an electric vehicle, or it breaks down, and no sign of it breaking down yet.
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
Openly LGBT of course.
I think that you can sail quite close to the wind on that one, given that he is dead.
I'm not starting that argument again but let's just say that at least 2 19th century Prime Ministers were widely rumoured to be homosexual during their lifetimes. (One of them had kids, so answers as to whether that makes you bi on a postcard please)
Presumably officially had kids. Doesn't mean he was daddy. (In that situation, he could have been in a tricky position had he complained about their birth).
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
Obviously not everything is Corbyn's fault, but it does as an outsider feel a bit like he came into things which were already difficult, acted as a major disruptor, but was unable to rebuild anything. So they've neither revolutionised things or recovered.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
A good point also applicable to the LDs.
And, of course, to the Conservatives. They stand for nothing, at least not on a permanent basis - but this is done deliberately so that they can win elections.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
Depends what you mean by "anti trans". The Stonewall view is that fighting for the inclusion & acceptance rights of gender-non-conforming and sexuality-non-conforming minorities goes together. Same basic argument for (one largely won, one very much in play) and certain similar prejudices against to be overcome. That's their view. Some disagree and LGB Alliance were formed to take the gender aspect out of it. So not so much "anti trans" and "without trans". However in practice much of their campaigning & rhetoric is about transpeople and the transgender issue, and it tends to be relentlessly negative to the notion of more inclusivity. So in this sense "anti trans" isn't a wholly inaccurate label for the LGB Alliance, and it does (sadly) fit the bill for some of those most active in and around it.
L and G are about sex and sexual attraction though.
Not according to the BBC (via Stonewall) - homosexuality is defined as someone attracted to the same gender
I wonder which is the smaller number, the people who 2 weeks ago gave a fuck about the ECJ or the people who had heard of Ms Stock 2 weeks ago? Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
She's an academic, isn't a third of that job role plugging your own books anyway?
Oh, I wish That sounds much more fun than what we actually do.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
Ha I don't begrudge it at all! When I did my MA a few years ago the module leaders always got a little plug of their book in wherever they could. Given how busy some of the staff must be I get it, it was just quite comical to see how they shoehorned it in.
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Bit of a mistake by her to put her signature to documents and be part of groups that want to repeal the GRA then.
She's not is she?
Isn't she part of a group that wants to retain the GRA as it is? As opposed to changing it?
The LGB Alliance, ibln their submission to parliament, want significant changes to the GRA, indeed they casualy mention half way through their submission that there is a good argument for the GRA being repealed entirely.
My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.
With a similar outcome.
I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.
Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
The conservative vote will continue to fall as you excommunicate conservative voters who disagree with your narrow view
Alternatively the Conservative vote won't fall because the Tory leadership aren't as pigheaded ignorant as he is.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
The Tories would lose far more votes, especially in London and the Home Counties, from increasing the rate of inheritance tax and lowering the threshold the estates of married couples pay it than they have from just increasing NI.
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid
You are truly a little Englander and if you think the red wall support your desire to avoid IHT through a million pound exemption then you are living in a fools paradise
HMG governs for the whole of the UK and right now it needs urgently to address fairness in taxation, not 0rovide for million pound inheritance tax free
The RedWall have got Brexit and lower immigration which they wanted and are getting more infrastructure investment (and even some RedWall properties would be hit by lowering the threshold for IHT as well as large numbers of properties in the BlueWall).
If you are so desperate for unTory wealth taxes and inheritance tax rises off to Starmer Labour with you.
Most of the RedWall won't be impacted by changes to IHT but it simply won't raise enough to be worth the grief of tinkering with it.
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.
Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?
In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
A good point also applicable to the LDs.
And, of course, to the Conservatives. They stand for nothing, at least not on a permanent basis - but this is done deliberately so that they can win elections.
Nonsense!
They stand for: Small state Low taxation Strong Defence......
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".
Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:
This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.
Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
Depends what you mean by "anti trans". The Stonewall view is that fighting for the inclusion & acceptance rights of gender-non-conforming and sexuality-non-conforming minorities goes together. Same basic argument for (one largely won, one very much in play) and certain similar prejudices against to be overcome. That's their view. Some disagree and LGB Alliance were formed to take the gender aspect out of it. So not so much "anti trans" and "without trans". However in practice much of their campaigning & rhetoric is about transpeople and the transgender issue, and it tends to be relentlessly negative to the notion of more inclusivity. So in this sense "anti trans" isn't a wholly inaccurate label for the LGB Alliance, and it does (sadly) fit the bill for some of those most active in and around it.
L and G are about sex and sexual attraction though.
Not according to the BBC (via Stonewall) - homosexuality is defined as someone attracted to the same gender
Which is patently absurd. Sex is sexual.
So if an attractive woman (sexually) identifies as trans, with no outward signs that she is trans, then does that mean any man attracted to her is now gay?
Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.
Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
That's one box down. Got to tick the first ethnic minority PM first (assuming you don't count Disraeli of course).
Openly LGBT of course.
I think that you can sail quite close to the wind on that one, given that he is dead.
I'm not starting that argument again but let's just say that at least 2 19th century Prime Ministers were widely rumoured to be homosexual during their lifetimes. (One of them had kids, so answers as to whether that makes you bi on a postcard please)
Presumably officially had kids. Doesn't mean he was daddy. (In that situation, he could have been in a tricky position had he complained about their birth).
Just one of the many problems with such speculation.
TheWhiteRabbit said: 1. Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
2.I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
Yes, autocorrect....
The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
Missing the point I think.
First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.
This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.
Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.
Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.
But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.
And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.
Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.
OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
That depends upon the nature of the organisation. If, for example, I worked for the Labour party, it would be reasonable for my employer to insist that I should not criticise Labour in public.
Academics, on the other hand, ought to be free to express any opinion, more or less, so long as they aren't breaking any laws by doing so, and so long as they aren't breaching the duties that their employer can reasonably expect of them.
I'll take an extreme case to illustrate my point. Does a lecturer have the right to belong to the British National Party? Yes. IMHO. Does he have the right to refuse to teach black students, or discriminate against them? No. It's his duty to teach such students, and to act fairly towards them.
Thanks. I'm left mulling the practicalities of the extreme example - for instance how one might demonstrate that one had not discriminated against X, despite being a member of an organization that advocated such discrimination.
Because the onus of proof is on whoever is making the allegation of discrimination, not on the recipient to prove the negative.
Employers still not getting their heads around this labour shortage business. More jobs advertised at minimum wage. Must be available 8 am to 8 pm 5 days a week. Here's a radical idea. How about advertising full time jobs on regular scheduled hours or shifts? I have a feeling it might help.
Comments
It is also rather reminiscent of what used to happen when I was younger - men claiming that women were only lesbians because they had not had sex with the right sort of man yet, "right sort of man" being the oaf making the claim of course.
Repellent then. Repellent now.
There is indeed something rather "hateful" about attacking lesbians in such a way.
I think its more likely they'll all oppose it, or all accept it though. Because they have the same objections at the minute - and the question isn't whether the EU have been "generous" in its proposal, its whether they have satisfied the Unionists objections or not.
Covid: Lateral flow tests more accurate than first thought, study finds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58899612
So LFTS aren't a waste of time and money, nor woefully inaccurate.
Shame that poor, publicity shy Stock has had all this attention drawn to her, still, she might as well make the most of it.
What is the difference between a "queer trans woman" wanting a lesbian to sleep with them, and a "straight man" wanting the same?
Its up to the woman to decide who she is attracted to and who she wants to be with, and if she's not attracted to men then she won't be attracted to either of them and that isn't transphobic to say.
And there will also be Conservatives (pensioners especially after the triple lock suspension) that will be saying they won't vote but probably will in the end.
A lot of the voter churn eventually evens out on the day.
Mask wearing and restricting indoor gathering are not cost free. If you force people to wear masks or to be outside in order to do certain things, fewer of them will do those things. And less economy will happen as a result.
In my opnion Hancock was given the boot far too late.
It is that their polls are developing a consistency of being out of line with everyone else.
And, as ever, it is their low Labour score which makes the difference.
Hmm.
I don't know.
Which of her oeuvre is your favourite, Some Reflections on Seeing-as, Metaphor-Grasping and Imagining, or perhaps Fictive Utterance and Imagining?
Or something.....
Academics, on the other hand, ought to be free to express any opinion, more or less, so long as they aren't breaking any laws by doing so, and so long as they aren't breaching the duties that their employer can reasonably expect of them.
I'll take an extreme case to illustrate my point. Does a lecturer have the right to belong to the British National Party? Yes. IMHO. Does he have the right to refuse to teach black students, or discriminate against them? No. It's his duty to teach such students, and to act fairly towards them.
https://terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/
Academics live in the public fora. And have done since academics were invented.
If HYUFD was leader the Tories would poll less than Theresa May in 2019 European Parliament elections.
If only so I can collect £5020 from Sunak getting the job.
I was more than implying that there are certain people (I think on both sides as it happens) in this debate who revel in the attention and who are over fond of the sound of their own voice. That they're picked up by reactionaries on the relentless search for wedge issues is an unattractive side issue.
https://www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/?q=reviews/2023-review-uk-parliament-constituencies
It seems Angus gains some bits from both Dundee seats.
The Lab+LD+G score is 48-51 with them all, which is fair enough. The Con + Reform score is 43-45 (assuming Survation have Reform on 4)
…
(Hat-tip @RobD )
On 23 October, Diwali celebrations will return to London with a live hybrid event in Trafalgar Square Party popper
As always, you can expect an incredible display of lights and a packed schedule of entertainment. Come join us in person, or watch it virtually at home. More info:
https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/1448354468395954182?s=20
Which is why the Tory leadership increased NI and not inheritance tax or income tax to pay for social care and the extra NHS costs from Covid. Unlike you I understand who the Tory core vote is ie home owners, their heirs and pensioners. Even in 2019 employees narrowly voted Labour despite the Tory win overall.
Slightly surprising, on reflection, how many east-Asian-looking students there were. Far, far more than would be expected as a normal chunk of the British population. I thought the (Asian) international part of the student market had fallen away dramatically?
I don't envy these people their job.
Isn't she part of a group that wants to retain the GRA as it is? As opposed to changing it?
HMG governs for the whole of the UK and right now it needs urgently to address fairness in taxation, not provide for million pound inheritance tax free
My impression was they threaded the needle fairly well in my area. Had expected it to be much more controversial in England tbh.
It doesn't take much in the way of resources. And provides a number that would actually be comparable across nations, and would be extremely useful for the WHO
If you are so desperate for unTory wealth taxes and inheritance tax rises off to Starmer Labour with you.
I've got one (chapter in a) book. My wife has a chapter in the same book, so we did cash in by flogging one of our two complimentary copies (we got one each) on Amazon. Got about £50 for it #snoutsinthetrough
The other option is that polling essentially hasn't caught up yet. That sounds stupid - perhaps it is - but I keep going back to early 2019 and a period of consistent Tory leads even as May was completely paralysed by internal divisions and it seemed crisis was everywhere. Eventually the polling collapsed, but seemed well after it should have when the government was in freefall, as if the cumulative effect had finally taken hold.
*sob*
https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/Practical-Debt-Recovery-by-David-J-T-Logan/9780406933867
As for banning my conservative vote you may succeed if the conservatives do not create a fairness in the tax system
I'm not sure I follow what point you are making, as I assume its not that.
tories = 1954 Austin Champ painted for WW2 reenactment. Possible blown head gasket.
LibDem = Bus pass
Greens = BMW i4 M50 in San Remo Green
SNP = Argyll Turbo GT
(The 'no cover image available' image actually looks quite apt to me. Are these your memoirs from your days as a bailiff?)
@BritainElects
·
51m
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 41% (+2)
LAB: 31% (-)
LDEM: 9% (-)
GRN: 8% (-1)
REFUK: 4%: (-)
via
@YouGov
, 12 - 13 Oct
Chgs. w/ 06 Oct
SKS fans please explain
For my part, I don't mind how they rationalise it to themselves either - so long as it smooths the GB-NI border in a pragmatic way and ends the dispute.
I hope the detail of the EU's proposals match up to the headlines, that the UK doesn't overplay its hand, and a permanent deal is quickly done.
Get KotN a seat quick.
It was a book that set out how to recover debts in Scotland as the law stood in 2001 that I wrote in my spare time whilst I was training for the bar. Unfortunately the law has changed rather a lot since then and I am too busy to do an update.
I have never had a job as a bailiff but spent 15 years in debt actions (amongst many others thankfully) as a solicitor.
Should lesbians be free to say to say they would not have sex with someone with a penis?
Should lesbians be free to say they're sexually attracted to women, by which they mean people who are women sexually?
How did that work out @Bigjohnowls
That's the problem.
Its an extremely reliable and well built car. It was one of the first cars to offer a seven year warranty instead of a three year one. I've owned mine for 11 years now, have done 80,000 miles on it, and it still drives pretty much as good as new. I see no reason to replace it until I can replace it with an electric vehicle, or it breaks down, and no sign of it breaking down yet.
I don't see the Labour Party in that at all.
They stand for:
Small state
Low taxation
Strong Defence......
So if an attractive woman (sexually) identifies as trans, with no outward signs that she is trans, then does that mean any man attracted to her is now gay?
1. Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.
2.I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)
1.Wrong windows or living in denial
2.Anyone but Starmer.
@Roger said
Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
You were posting last week that SKS was breaking through.
Hes not he is breaking Labour
More jobs advertised at minimum wage. Must be available 8 am to 8 pm 5 days a week.
Here's a radical idea.
How about advertising full time jobs on regular scheduled hours or shifts?
I have a feeling it might help.