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.
Sometimes it's the book that arises from the lecture course - so useful to have that to read as well as attend the lectures, of course (no pun intended).
Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.
I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.
I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.
(And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.
When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.
I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.
The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.
Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.
Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.
If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.
It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 1.25 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.
What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?
Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
What really needs to happen is to have inflation represent all prices and not just the current basket. Most especially it should incorporate house prices.
For the past couple of decades we've been lied to that there hasn't been inflation, while housing costs (the biggest cost in a household's budget on average) have gone through the roof.
If Stuartinromford's scenario comes to pass that consumer prices are rising but house prices are falling, then that should not justify an interest rate rise, since overall prices would be stable (its just rebalancing from one cost to another) then why should interest rates move?
IIUC the CPI in the US has a thing called "owner's equivalent rent" where they estimate how much you'd be paying if you were renting from yourself, and that gets you how a number for what you're spending to *consume* housing, which is what they're supposed to be measuring. You don't want to just take the value of the asset, because that's not consumption, just like the CPI doesn't include stock prices.
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
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.
A baseball bat on the front cover would have been good, if you *really* mean practical.
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.
Fancy a political party trying to win elections!
A waste of time, if the only functions are to win elections for the sake of winning elections and to line the pockets of vested interests like donors.
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.
At Sheffield undergrads are wearing, post grads not.
If the Labour leadership can't make any progress given how awful the government is, or given the mess the country is in, or given Keir Starmer had his big opportunity to speak to the nation at Labour conference, then when?
What is going to suddenly turn these figures around?
Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.
I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.
I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.
(And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.
When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.
I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.
The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.
Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.
Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.
If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.
It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 1.25 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.
What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?
Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
What really needs to happen is to have inflation represent all prices and not just the current basket. Most especially it should incorporate house prices.
For the past couple of decades we've been lied to that there hasn't been inflation, while housing costs (the biggest cost in a household's budget on average) have gone through the roof.
If Stuartinromford's scenario comes to pass that consumer prices are rising but house prices are falling, then that should not justify an interest rate rise, since overall prices would be stable (its just rebalancing from one cost to another) then why should interest rates move?
IIUC the CPI in the US has a thing called "owner's equivalent rent" where they estimate how much you'd be paying if you were renting from yourself, and that gets you how a number for what you're spending to *consume* housing, which is what they're supposed to be measuring. You don't want to just take the value of the asset, because that's not consumption, just like the CPI doesn't include stock prices.
Does the UK not do that?
The UK used to when we had RPI as our inflation measure. However we converted to the EU's CPI metric in accordance with EU law, which doesn't have it.
Nice of Politics Live to help the government by showing container ships queuing to get into the port at LA, helpfully demonstrating the impact of Brexit on the USA.
Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.
I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.
I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.
(And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.
When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.
I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.
The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.
Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.
Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.
If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.
It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 1.25 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.
What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?
Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
What really needs to happen is to have inflation represent all prices and not just the current basket. Most especially it should incorporate house prices.
For the past couple of decades we've been lied to that there hasn't been inflation, while housing costs (the biggest cost in a household's budget on average) have gone through the roof.
If Stuartinromford's scenario comes to pass that consumer prices are rising but house prices are falling, then that should not justify an interest rate rise, since overall prices would be stable (its just rebalancing from one cost to another) then why should interest rates move?
IIUC the CPI in the US has a thing called "owner's equivalent rent" where they estimate how much you'd be paying if you were renting from yourself, and that gets you how a number for what you're spending to *consume* housing, which is what they're supposed to be measuring. You don't want to just take the value of the asset, because that's not consumption, just like the CPI doesn't include stock prices.
Does the UK not do that?
The UK used to when we had RPI as our inflation measure. However we converted to the EU's CPI metric in accordance with EU law, which doesn't have it.
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
Please do not quote numbers without naming the poll.
Star Sports' weekly Polling Station video was uploaded today. They reckon Liz Truss is value at 12/1 for next PM (14/1 with Ladbrokes but they restricted me to £1.43 so I did not bother) on the grounds she is unlikely to screw up voters' lives in that role. It also covered France, Northern Ireland and America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istfmw1j6wM
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
Well, that's all the SKS enthusiasts on here told. Well done.
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.
Quite. But if the lecturer is prima facie a discriminator, that's very helpful to the complainant, surely. Remember than not all cases go to law court. Could be internal or a tribunal. Or simply accepted to avoid the hassle and cost of a law case.
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
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
If Rishi raised IHT and lowered the threshold Boris would sack him within a week as the Tory Blue Wall vote would collapse.
Which is why he won't, at most he may remove some reliefs
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
IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.
Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
He needs to be careful with this Forever War against the EU, though. Yes, it plays well to his Leaver base, and he needs to keep that together to win again, but he also needs to keep most of another (smaller but still important) voter group who were key to his election victory - those who truly did just want to Get Brexit Done. The brilliant campaign stunt where he drove a digger through a wall was targeted at these people, many of whom had voted Remain. They were tired of the issue and went with "Boris" so as to finish it. I can relate. I felt the same way about Brexit by then and I might have voted for him too if I were apolitical rather than a Hard Left Social Democrat. But thinking of those who did, will they be impressed if fractious Brexit negotiations become the new normal? Will they appreciate having a lot of Lord Frost in their lives? I'd say not. I reckon they'll go, "Hang on. I thought this was sorted. Was that a con? Was my vote snaffled under false pretences by a lying pig of a Tory politician? Hmm. Let's have a think about this."
I think that's right, and it's implicit in the occasional outbreaks of 'Brexit is over, no one cares about it as an issue' from even the more..er..enthusiastic Brexiteers on here. That they're usually the ones to pick the scab into inflammation again is just one of life's little ironies.
How (if) this Protocol business is settled will be instructive imo. Will we get a good faith, hammered-out compromise, based on the EU offer, which pretty much resolves the main practical problems? Or will we get "sovereignty" grandstanding? Frostie shall fight in Brussels, he shall fight on the seas and the oceans, he shall fight with growing confidence and a fire in his pants to defend our beloved Northern Island from that ultimate of evils, the oversight of the ECJ over certain aspects of economic life which relate to NI's concessionary membership of the European Single Market For Goods.
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
Well, that's all the SKS enthusiasts on here told. Well done.
Who are they?
Camden's deputy mayor isn't one..
Lorna Jane Russell @lornajane2 Last night I took the difficult decision to leave the Labour Party and join @TheGreenParty. It's not been an easy decision, but I have a genuine passion for securing climate justice in Camden and beyond, and I can't wait to work with @sianberry to take this work forward Green heart
But seems she was a fan of her constituency MP a few months ago when she went to the footy with him..
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 bought some of those, and some mince pies. Unfortunately, they were very nice to eat.
To be fair to @bigjohnowls, there is a strong argument for saying that, if Corbyn was leader now, Labour would be a lot closer. A good amount of that would be down to the simple fact that Corbyn advocated what the Conservative Government is doing now, namely opening the money spigots and being effectively practising Modern Monetary Theory even if they won’t say it. Corbyn would be able to turn round and say “I told you so”.
Starmer, on the other hand, would not be able to credibly claim this positive because, to put it bluntly, people wouldn’t trust him on this.
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.
What do you call "the cotton ceiling"?
Not familiar with it. If it involves hassling people over who they are sexually attracted to, I'm anti it.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
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.
And do the students have the right to demo against that person?
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.
To switch your support involves having someone to switch to. On the Tory's general grounds of support Brexit, back Boris, the left are useless, there is no obvious alternative. On the centre left there is.
Polls can't tell you what seems likely - though what would count as evidence - that when the wheels come off they will come off bigly; and that SKS best (almost only) tactic is wait around being the only other government when the poor old voter wants one. In that he is doing as well as possible, given that he is surrounded by an unelectable party.
There is no other party at all who could either govern or be part of government whose heart is in progressing Brexit. This is key. Even those leavers who have quietly changed their minds still want the country run by someone who believes in it even if they don't. This will be true until Rejoin/EFTA is an option.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
Labour + Greens combined are on 39% ie would mean a hung parliament, Labour alone are on 31% ie a comfortable Tory majority.
So Corbynites having a tantrum over Starmer are ensuring that under FPTP 'Vote Green, Get Blue!!'
You should be happy.
My local Party has had over 150 resignation out of 800
i know about half of the resigners and have yet to find one who may still vote Labour under Starmer
Those who think they will still vote Labour are in complete denial I am afraid
Yougov has Starmer gaining 6% of 2019 Tory voters and only losing 4% of 2019 Labour voters to the Tories and Starmer has also gained 27% of 2019 LD voters.
However Starmer has also lost 12% of 2019 Corbyn Labour voters to the Greens.
If Corbyn was Labour leader again than those 2019 Tory and LD voters now backing Starmer would move back to the Tories and LDs from Labour to keep Corbyn out.
So you have to face the facts, you can scream and scream that only Jezza will do and have a big tantrum and vow you will not vote Labour again under Torylite Starmer. However once they get to the ballot box I expect a lot of those Green ex Labour voters faced with another 4 or 5 years of Tory government will end up voting Labour, especially in marginals
On topic, re Leicester East. Claudia Webbe is expected to cling to office pending an appeal. Maybe Boris should persuade his Russian backers to give Webbe £500k to go now, and the same for Rob Roberts. This would allow CCHQ to test its theory that winter elections favour the Conservative Party.
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.
And do the students have the right to demo against that person?
Yes. And though extreme rightists can I suppose in principle be academics, there is the same problem as with extreme leftists, and extremes of every sort: do they truly have the cognitive aptitude to be HE academics if they are so dim about important matters? The highly academic well heeled comfortable Oxford revolutionary communist has been a genuine figure of academe in most of the 20th century. For all I know some of these dinosaurs are still there. It does not add to one's confidence in the set up.
BJO is pretty typical of a certain group of Labour refusniks. You get a steady stream of this stuff in the CLP. Something happens in the news involving Starmer and you can count 5-4-3-2-1 and you get a post attacking him. All pretty transparent. They occasionally differ in who their white knight saviour 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.
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.
If a lesbian says they won't have sex with someone with a penis is that transphobic?
No. As I said, it's 100% private domain. As a general point I'd caution against viewing the transgender issue through the rhetoric of extremists on either side. All very exciting to discover the "Cotton Ceiling", and to take a deep dive from there into the sex life of lesbians, but you won't emerge with a better understanding of what the core debate is about.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
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's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
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.
If a lesbian says they won't have sex with someone with a penis is that transphobic?
No. As I said, it's 100% private domain. As a general point I'd caution against viewing the transgender issue through the rhetoric of extremists on either side. All very exciting to discover the "Cotton Ceiling", and to take a deep dive from there into the sex life of lesbians, but you won't emerge with a better understanding of what the core debate is about.
That's a reasoned and moderate position, and matches closely with what the LGB Alliance have said over what Stonewall have to say.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I don't disagree except for the characterisation of "Corbyn the Personality". I am led to believe Ted Bundy had an engaging personality.
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.
I've been able to work out that my MSP is SNP type Audrey Nicoll.
Does anyone know who my MP might be or how I can work it out?
Google or bing Torry constituency and ignore the suggestion you cannot spell Tory! Google says it is in Aberdeen South and the MP is Stephen Flynn SNP.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
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?
100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that. Transphobia is fear & loathing of transgender people, typically manifested with cheap jokes, the mocking or denial of them and their identity, and insinuation they are likely to be dangerous perverts. There's a lot of it about. It's 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.
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?
I had never looked at it that way. Interesting
Because I once had a girlfriend who was non-binery/genderqueer (I think: it was all quite confusing)
That does make me at least half gay, then. A demigay.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
A mirror image of yourself.
And at that point i was an enthusiastic activist.
Now its anyone but SKS for me.
Do you not give any of the worse than Corbyn polling credit to SKS?
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I don't disagree except for the characterisation of "Corbyn the Personality". I am led to believe Ted Bundy had an engaging personality.
Did Ted Bundy get 12.8m people voting for him to be PM?
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?
I've covered lesbians and penises, I think. Any questions not to do with lesbians and penises?
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
Love the inference that 2017 was some kind of victory for Labour (how deluded are Corbynites?). I seem to remember that Mr. Thicky lost. I know that this is not a failure of my memory because I don't think he ended in No 10
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
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?
100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that. Transphobia is fear & loathing of transgender people, typically manifested with cheap jokes, the mocking or denial of them and their identity, and insinuation they are likely to be dangerous perverts. There's a lot of it about. It's mainstream.
I've no doubt transphobia is a thing, and it is clearly wrong and should be condemned
But trans people - at the activist end - really do not help their cause by being so relentlessly spiteful, aggressive, bitter, nasty and violent on social media (and sometimes in reality). Getting people sacked everywhere, issuing rape and death threats all over the shop, it's disgusting, frankly
As I said yesterday, the trans hardcore are in danger of making transphobia much worse, by their own behaviour
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.
Seems like a summary I once read which was 'It's not illegal to be a racist or have racist thoughts, but it is often illegal to do racist things or have that racism impact what you do', and the difficulty of proving that sometimes.
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.
So are you up for settling on this basis? Or would the oversight of the ECJ still be keeping you up at night?
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?
I've covered lesbians and penises, I think. Any questions not to do with lesbians and penises?
Should women who have been abused and are seeking a sanctuary be entitled to an all (sexually) female refuge?
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?
A short post, this, but there's quite a lot going on in 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.
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?
A short post, this, but there's quite a lot going on in it.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
I agree with many Tory policis like levelling up, raising Corporation tax, raising taxes via NI to pay for Social Care.
Labour dont and are outflanking Tories to the right whilst prioritisig factional battles over beating the Tories
For avoidance of doubt I do not want Starmer as PM and will never vote Labour whilst he is leader.
Therefore my desire to see Starmer fail is greater than my desire to get rid of Johnson.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
It's interesting, but I think every Labour poster here voted for Nandy. Whatever one thinks of Starmer (I think he is boring but decent) there is no prospect of replacing him before the next GE, especially not with someone who is not currently an MP, so let's get behind him and start the difficult process of dislodging this corrupt, dishonest and incompetent regime from power.
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.
Yep. Hence me seeking to get a fair & useful definition. Transphobia or anti-trans is the fear & loathing of transgender people, a feeling of generalized prejudice against them, typically manifested with cheap jokes, the mocking or denial of them and their identity, and insinuation they are likely to be dangerous perverts. It's easy to spot imo.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
It's interesting, but I think every Labour poster here voted for Nandy. Whatever one thinks of Starmer (I think he is boring but decent) there is no prospect of replacing him before the next GE, especially not with someone who is not currently an MP, so let's get behind him and start the difficult process of dislodging this corrupt, dishonest and incompetent regime from power.
But Nandy is also remarkably boring, uncharismatic and even more Woke. She's the Wokesters' Wendy Woke, at a Wokefest, after snorting a massive line of Woke
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
It's interesting, but I think every Labour poster here voted for Nandy. Whatever one thinks of Starmer (I think he is boring but decent) there is no prospect of replacing him before the next GE, especially not with someone who is not currently an MP, so let's get behind him and start the difficult process of dislodging this corrupt, dishonest and incompetent regime from power.
But if you've got serious qualms with 'your own' parties leadership and the way its going, why should you give them your undying fidelity?
I'm a Conservative by nature but have twice quit the Tory Party in recent years. Firstly when May won the election through to her being replaced, I despised her xenophobia and intolerance so couldn't support her under any circumstances. Secondly when Boris and Sunak raised NI.
If your party is heading in the wrong direction then why should you "get behind them"? You should support a party because you believe in what its doing, not because its your football team through thick and thin.
Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
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.
Yep. Hence me seeking to get a fair & useful definition. Transphobia or anti-trans is the fear & loathing of transgender people, a feeling of generalized prejudice against them, typically manifested with cheap jokes, the mocking or denial of them and their identity, and insinuation they are likely to be dangerous perverts. It's easy to spot imo.
Its also thankfully extremely uncommon.
Which is why the arguments are happening about propositions where rights clash, instead of what you're describing.
100% private domain. As I keep saying. Transphobia is not that.
As you keep saying, sure. Have you ever thought where those views are going to leave you in a few years time, or even now?.
In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...
"we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.
"What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...
"exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...
"Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"
Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.
Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.
Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
I've been able to work out that my MSP is SNP type Audrey Nicoll.
Does anyone know who my MP might be or how I can work it out?
Doing my own research it looks like it might be another SNP type Stephen Flynn.
How am I able to confirm this?
Go to Wiki. Put constituency in search. Check 2019 member (or constituency details at top right).
& yes, it's Flynn.
Thanks for trying to help.
Know much about Flynn or Nicoll?
Not a sausage.
Well I'm following them both on twitter now. I presume (relating to the Sexuality debate, at least) that they can't possibly be worse than my previous MP Kirsty Blackman
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
Love the inference that 2017 was some kind of victory for Labour (how deluded are Corbynites?). I seem to remember that Mr. Thicky lost. I know that this is not a failure of my memory because I don't think he ended in No 10
Your memory doesnt stretch to biggest increase in Labour vote since WW2 though. I'm shocked.
And you should refer to Forde report for why Jezza wasnt PM as party rules were broken to divert monies away from the marginals that would have won it to safe Labour seats of Right Wing MPs
SKS and Evans are promoting those that actively worked against a Lab victory from within whilst trying to pretend Forde doesn't count
The deputy mayor of the council where Keir Starmer’s seat is has switched from Labour to the Greens.
If that happened during the Corbyn leadership you could expect a week of talk radio shows, James O’Brien having a televised aneurysm & a panorama investigation.
The deputy mayor of the council where Keir Starmer’s seat is has switched from Labour to the Greens.
If that happened during the Corbyn leadership you could expect a week of talk radio shows, James O’Brien having a televised aneurysm & a panorama investigation.
Pretty sure Panorama investigations were about widespread abuse, racism and antisemitism not a defection.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
A mirror image of yourself.
And at that point i was an enthusiastic activist.
Now its anyone but SKS for me.
Do you not give any of the worse than Corbyn polling credit to SKS?
Honestly, I mostly shut up 2015-2019 despite the writing being on the wall. Corbyn was elected leader. He had his shot to be PM and failed twice.
With regard to Starmer, his challenges are pretty obvious. He inherited a poison chalice and is objectively a pretty inexperienced leader.
I don't see a huge benefit in me publicly picking holes and do not see a leadership challenge as helping. Starmer has taken the first few steps back from the 2019 nadir and is not and will never will be hugely popular with a certain crowd for that.
Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
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
IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.
Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
He needs to be careful with this Forever War against the EU, though. Yes, it plays well to his Leaver base, and he needs to keep that together to win again, but he also needs to keep most of another (smaller but still important) voter group who were key to his election victory - those who truly did just want to Get Brexit Done. The brilliant campaign stunt where he drove a digger through a wall was targeted at these people, many of whom had voted Remain. They were tired of the issue and went with "Boris" so as to finish it. I can relate. I felt the same way about Brexit by then and I might have voted for him too if I were apolitical rather than a Hard Left Social Democrat. But thinking of those who did, will they be impressed if fractious Brexit negotiations become the new normal? Will they appreciate having a lot of Lord Frost in their lives? I'd say not. I reckon they'll go, "Hang on. I thought this was sorted. Was that a con? Was my vote snaffled under false pretences by a lying pig of a Tory politician? Hmm. Let's have a think about this."
Hard Left Social Democrat @londonpubman been indoctrinating you?
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
It's interesting, but I think every Labour poster here voted for Nandy. Whatever one thinks of Starmer (I think he is boring but decent) there is no prospect of replacing him before the next GE, especially not with someone who is not currently an MP, so let's get behind him and start the difficult process of dislodging this corrupt, dishonest and incompetent regime from power.
But if you've got serious qualms with 'your own' parties leadership and the way its going, why should you give them your undying fidelity?
I'm a Conservative by nature but have twice quit the Tory Party in recent years. Firstly when May won the election through to her being replaced, I despised her xenophobia and intolerance so couldn't support her under any circumstances. Secondly when Boris and Sunak raised NI.
If your party is heading in the wrong direction then why should you "get behind them"? You should support a party because you believe in what its doing, not because its your football team through thick and thin.
I don't fundamentally disagree with Starmer or the direction he is going in. I just think he's a bit too boring and unimaginative to be a good party leader. I did disagree a lot with Corbyn but hung around as a member to vote for his successor and make sure they were better. I am a centre left person and I think Labour is the only plausible electoral vehicle for implementing Centre left policies in the UK, so I don't think I would ever leave the party even if on a day to day basis I probably disagree with it on a lot of things a lot of the time.
Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
The last one obviously didn't sort it.
Because from the assassination of Lincoln onwards the USA had a serious of truly dreadful Presidents.
Its interesting to think what could have been different had Lincoln survived.
A row continues on twitter over the Irish/British/Englishness of Edmund Burke (following Lord Frost's speech claiming he was "one of my country's great political philosophers")
I'm not sure why he should be considered any more Irish, or less British/English than Wellington, but it does seem he is.
I doubt though that the (presumably English) contemporaneous commentator who mocked his oratory as “stinking of whiskey and potatoes” considered him English at all!
Is there any other possible outcome than the death of the Republic at this point?
Aye, when these people start elevating their deplorability to the sacred, the game probably is fecked. Why couldn't they be happy with line dancing, bumper stickers and bump stocks?
There's nothing wrong with America that a good old fashioned, down home, traditional American Civil War couldn't sort out
Mmm. Am becoming ever more convinced we'll see it. Within our lifetimes probably. Was the conclusion of horizon scanning committee some years ago I believe. Wouldn't end well or especially quickly, I fear.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
Surely - surely - we are discussing whether Starmer is good enough, or not, to deprive the Conservatives of a majority next time around? I can't believe there is any prospect of Starmer doing worse than Corbyn. This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people. I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
SKS may alienate fewer non Labour voters but he enthuses far fewer actual Labour voters too and alienates many of those too
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
Despite polls and evidence you never said any of this stuff a couple of years ago. Then everything that went wrong was the fault of anyone but the leader. No, as if by magic, everything is the fault of Starmer.
A mirror image of yourself.
And at that point i was an enthusiastic activist.
Now its anyone but SKS for me.
Do you not give any of the worse than Corbyn polling credit to SKS?
Honestly, I mostly shut up 2015-2019 despite the writing being on the wall. Corbyn was elected leader. He had his shot to be PM and failed twice.
With regard to Starmer, his challenges are pretty obvious. He inherited a poison chalice and is objectively a pretty inexperienced leader.
I don't see a huge benefit in me publicly picking holes and do not see a leadership challenge as helping. Starmer has taken the first few steps back from the 2019 nadir and is not and will never will be hugely popular with a certain crowd for that.
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.
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.
And do the students have the right to demo against that person?
Yes. And though extreme rightists can I suppose in principle be academics, there is the same problem as with extreme leftists, and extremes of every sort: do they truly have the cognitive aptitude to be HE academics if they are so dim about important matters? The highly academic well heeled comfortable Oxford revolutionary communist has been a genuine figure of academe in most of the 20th century. For all I know some of these dinosaurs are still there. It does not add to one's confidence in the set up.
There's a difference though. The extreme left tend to be naive about (eg) economics and human nature, whereas the extreme right tend to push identity based hatred. I wouldn't want either as a lecturer, personally, but the latter would trouble me more.
(Yes, Stalin was a monster. Just to preempt that one. I don't seek to whitewash totalitarian Communism. I'm talking about the types who might be lecturers in our unis whilst holding extreme end views.)
It's bad, very bad, but it could be so much worse.
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
Living in the past Pete
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
I don't know.
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I am not even very left wing. RLB was never an option for me.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I voted for Nandy too. But she lost. Starmer won. That's democracy for you.
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
I agree with many Tory policis like levelling up, raising Corporation tax, raising taxes via NI to pay for Social Care.
Labour dont and are outflanking Tories to the right whilst prioritisig factional battles over beating the Tories
For avoidance of doubt I do not want Starmer as PM and will never vote Labour whilst he is leader.
Therefore my desire to see Starmer fail is greater than my desire to get rid of Johnson.
How very peculiar.
You are clearly more enlightened than a never Johnson voter like me.
Although, forgive me, you have been taken in by the smoke and mirrors of levelling up. I have an invisible garden bridge to sell you.
Comments
Does the UK not do that?
As I say please explain
CON: 41% (+2)
LAB: 31% (-)
SKS approval -44 (-7)
What is going to suddenly turn these figures around?
Sunil?
Starmer is a symptom, the disease was Corbyn.
% who think Starmer is doing well/badly:
Well: 18% (-2)
Badly: 62% (+3)
[Net rating: -44]
That means Keir Starmer has a worse approval rating than the shockingly poor Jeremy Corbyn did at the same stage of his leadership, without having suffered a relentless monstering from the media or his own MPs, including a bitter leadership contest.
Will Starmer even do better than 2019?
Its obvious that Andy Burnham would its 50/50 at best re Starmer IMO
Do you agree/ disagree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=istfmw1j6wM
Who are they?
Labour + Greens combined are on 39% ie would mean a hung parliament, Labour alone are on 31% ie a comfortable Tory majority.
So Corbynites having a tantrum over Starmer are ensuring that under FPTP 'Vote Green, Get Blue!!'
Which is why he won't, at most he may remove some reliefs
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1447632403745415175?t=JtZsq1MY1A-kGy-AmI0Huw&s=19
My local Party has had over 150 resignation out of 800
i know about half of the resigners and have yet to find one who may still vote Labour under Starmer
Those who think they will still vote Labour are in complete denial I am afraid
Lorna Jane Russell
@lornajane2 Last night I took the difficult decision to leave the Labour Party and join @TheGreenParty. It's not been an easy decision, but I have a genuine passion for securing climate justice in Camden and beyond, and I can't wait to work with @sianberry to take this work forward Green heart
But seems she was a fan of her constituency MP a few months ago when she went to the footy with him..
Maybe after Corbyn there is seisemic shift away from Labour. Maybe some Centrist pheonix from the ashes of Remainerdom will emerge.
Burnham is a New Labour jockey. I am surprised at the love you have for him.
I have no doubt AB would do far better than SKS.
Starmer, on the other hand, would not be able to credibly claim this positive because, to put it bluntly, people wouldn’t trust him on this.
This view isn't based on any reading of the evidence. But I'd be astonished if Starmer doesn't improve greatly on Corbyn's performance. He alienates far fewer people.
I am prepared to be astonished, of course. I was astonished when Corbyn won in the first place.
Polls can't tell you what seems likely - though what would count as evidence - that when the wheels come off they will come off bigly; and that SKS best (almost only) tactic is wait around being the only other government when the poor old voter wants one. In that he is doing as well as possible, given that he is surrounded by an unelectable party.
There is no other party at all who could either govern or be part of government whose heart is in progressing Brexit. This is key. Even those leavers who have quietly changed their minds still want the country run by someone who believes in it even if they don't. This will be true until Rejoin/EFTA is an option.
I was voting for AB in 2015 leadership right up to the point he agreed with L4^K and YC that Lab had to adopt austerity leaving Jezza as the only anti austerity candidate.
I voted for the most right wing candidate in 2019 (Nandy)
Its not about Corbynism its about having a personality and some decent policies like Burnham has (National Care Service free at the point of delivery, wealth tax etc etc)
Even more importantly being able to have a bit of passion and desire for change
I've been able to work out that my MSP is SNP type Audrey Nicoll.
Does anyone know who my MP might be or how I can work it out?
However Starmer has also lost 12% of 2019 Corbyn Labour voters to the Greens.
If Corbyn was Labour leader again than those 2019 Tory and LD voters now backing Starmer would move back to the Tories and LDs from Labour to keep Corbyn out.
So you have to face the facts, you can scream and scream that only Jezza will do and have a big tantrum and vow you will not vote Labour again under Torylite Starmer. However once they get to the ballot box I expect a lot of those Green ex Labour voters faced with another 4 or 5 years of Tory government will end up voting Labour, especially in marginals
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rh8jc785e5/TheTimes_VI_Results_211013_W.pdf
I think there is a 50/55 chance you will be shocked
And there is a close to zero chance of scaling 2017 heights unless inflation and interest rates really do run wild making people lose their houses etc
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17828/pdf/
How am I able to confirm this?
Back to work!
Shame both my MSP and MP are SNP types.
Put constituency in search.
Check 2019 member (or constituency details at top right).
& yes, it's Flynn.
Because I once had a girlfriend who was non-binery/genderqueer (I think: it was all quite confusing)
That does make me at least half gay, then. A demigay.
I am now an oppressed minority.
AT LAST
And at that point i was an enthusiastic activist.
Now its anyone but SKS for me.
Do you not give any of the worse than Corbyn polling credit to SKS?
Know much about Flynn or Nicoll?
You can moan as much as you like, but whatever you think Starmer will lead Labour into the next GE. Burnham's time may (or may not) come, but not until after the next GE.
So if you want to get rid of the Tories, as I do, Starmer is the only option for now, warts and all. But maybe you're not that bothered - you seem keener on slagging Starmer off than you do criticising Tory policies.
But trans people - at the activist end - really do not help their cause by being so relentlessly spiteful, aggressive, bitter, nasty and violent on social media (and sometimes in reality). Getting people sacked everywhere, issuing rape and death threats all over the shop, it's disgusting, frankly
As I said yesterday, the trans hardcore are in danger of making transphobia much worse, by their own behaviour
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1448589553896468487?s=20
https://www.starwars.com/video/so-this-is-how-liberty-dies
Labour dont and are outflanking Tories to the right whilst prioritisig factional battles over beating the Tories
For avoidance of doubt I do not want Starmer as PM and will never vote Labour whilst he is leader.
Therefore my desire to see Starmer fail is greater than my desire to get rid of Johnson.
I'm a Conservative by nature but have twice quit the Tory Party in recent years. Firstly when May won the election through to her being replaced, I despised her xenophobia and intolerance so couldn't support her under any circumstances. Secondly when Boris and Sunak raised NI.
If your party is heading in the wrong direction then why should you "get behind them"? You should support a party because you believe in what its doing, not because its your football team through thick and thin.
Which is why the arguments are happening about propositions where rights clash, instead of what you're describing.
In a recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 87.5% of the participants chose only cisgender people and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool. This blog, written by chapter author of 'The Intimate Relationships of Sexual and Gender Minorities' from The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships, 2E, looks at why...
"we know that romantic relationships are some of the most important sources of social support that we receive in our life time, and that these relationships contribute greatly to our overall well-being, including how happy we are, how often we get sick, and ultimately, how long we live.
"What then, does this mean for trans people’s overall well-being if the majority of people within society won’t even consider them as potential dating partners under hypothetical conditions? A lack of social support could contribute to some of the existing discrepancies in mental and physical well-being within trans communities...
"exclusion was likely the result of factors ranging from explicit transprejudice, such as viewing trans persons as unfit, mentally ill, or subhuman, to a lack of understanding or knowledge...
"Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating... However... the overall societal patterns of including or excluding trans people within the intimate realm of dating can be used as an indicator of overall acceptance and social inclusion of trans people... We won’t be able to say, as a society, that we are accepting of trans citizens until they are also included within our prospective dating pools"
Karen Blair is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia; an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Acadia University in Wolfville, Nova Scotia; and Chair of the Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity Issues (SOGII) Section of the Canadian Psychological Association.
Welcome to fifteeneightyfour, the blog of Cambridge University Press... dedicated to sharing scholarship from the finest academics in the world and fostering discussion worldwide about important issues in culture, politics, and science.
Are you really going to priorise the rights of a privileged heterosexual majority over the marginalised transexual community, regardless of its effect on the mental health of underprivileged minorities? If academic studies have determined that marginalisation results from explicit trans prejudice or ignorance, why do you support the perpetuation of archaic structures of sexual discrimination? Fold, or be unpersoned - which is it?
And you should refer to Forde report for why Jezza wasnt PM as party rules were broken to divert monies away from the marginals that would have won it to safe Labour seats of Right Wing MPs
SKS and Evans are promoting those that actively worked against a Lab victory from within whilst trying to pretend Forde doesn't count
If that happened during the Corbyn leadership you could expect a week of talk radio shows, James O’Brien having a televised aneurysm & a panorama investigation.
With regard to Starmer, his challenges are pretty obvious. He inherited a poison chalice and is objectively a pretty inexperienced leader.
I don't see a huge benefit in me publicly picking holes and do not see a leadership challenge as helping. Starmer has taken the first few steps back from the 2019 nadir and is not and will never will be hugely popular with a certain crowd for that.
Its interesting to think what could have been different had Lincoln survived.
I'm not sure why he should be considered any more Irish, or less British/English than Wellington, but it does seem he is.
I doubt though that the (presumably English) contemporaneous commentator who mocked his oratory as “stinking of whiskey and potatoes” considered him English at all!
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-space-missions-to-launch-from-2022-as-rocket-company-skyrora-and-saxavord-spaceport-secure-landmark-deal-12431910
The problem of Keir is the same as the problem of William Hague.
To win a landslide election in the UK, you need a dark, kinky streak of showmanship in your soul.
You need a piece of a swaggering Jagger, or a strutting Mercury.
Blair had that streak. Boris has it.
In fact, Boris' unassailable poll lead -- despite disaster after feckin disaster -- is reminiscent of the sheer invincibility of Blair prior to Iraq.
As with Tony, Boris will eventually do something as monumentally stupid as Iraq -- and the spell of the performance will be broken.
But Keir can't break the spell. No more than William Hague could.
Am becoming ever more convinced we'll see it. Within our lifetimes probably. Was the conclusion of horizon scanning committee some years ago I believe.
Wouldn't end well or especially quickly, I fear.
"Given that the GRA was introduced largely to solve problems relating to
marriage, which no longer exist, there are good grounds for repealing"
(Yes, Stalin was a monster. Just to preempt that one. I don't seek to whitewash totalitarian Communism. I'm talking about the types who might be lecturers in our unis whilst holding extreme end views.)
You are clearly more enlightened than a never Johnson voter like me.
Although, forgive me, you have been taken in by the smoke and mirrors of levelling up. I have an invisible garden bridge to sell you.