Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Leicester East – a possible by-election? – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 35,800
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    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.
    I don’t think it would last too long, personally.

    One side has an awful lot of guns and other weapons, and knows how to use them - while the other side would be trying to ensure equity in their army, by balancing all the genders, races and sexualities.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 14,788
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    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.
    Sadly, I agree.

    The transition of America from majority white to majority non-white was always going to be painful, but add in the explosion of Woke Lunacy and there is a strong chance the transition will be violent. And in the background is the demotion of America from global hegemon to mere rival-to-China, further destabilising American politics

    If it does get violent, it's not obvious who will win
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,036
    Question: "If a runner falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does he go '&**^^%! &**^* ****!' "

    Answer: yes. Question resolved via experimentation.

    Blooming autumnal leaves ... ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,102

    IshmaelZ said:

    NEW: Starmer's net approval has fallen to -44.

    % 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.

    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..

    That probably sets her up quite nicely in her ward, which is a long term LibDem stronghold; I expect the LibDems may give her a clear run next time.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,043

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    I am looking forward to the post Starmer era.
    For me this now goes beyond individuals or wings of the party. The left and the right of the Labour party have been knocking the shit out of each other for 40 years. The only people that ever benefit are the Tories.

    So if you can't say anything constructive, it's time to shut up.

    If people don't shut up, Labour will die and we'll have one or two decades where FPTP reconfigures to find a new Tory alternative. One things for sure, that won't be any more left wing than Labour.

  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,119
    Jonathan said:


    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.

    " dark, kinky streak of showmanship in your soul." that's one hell of a phrase.
    Tip for Labour.

    @isam is right -- Jess Phillips has it.

    (As it happens, I don't particularly like Jess, much as I don't like Boris or Tony. But, Jess is Landslide Material).
  • Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Bit of a mistake by her to put her signature to documents and be part of groups that want to repeal the GRA then.
    Here is their submission to Parliament. Worth reading carefully.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17828/pdf/
    Yes, i have read it. That's how I know it says

    "Given that the GRA was introduced largely to solve problems relating to
    marriage, which no longer exist, there are good grounds for repealing"
    Saying that there are grounds for repealing ≠ saying that they want to repeal it.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    O/t but.
    My car insurance renewal notice is just in. Increase of just under 15% on last year. A short spell on comparison sites beckons.

    Actually my wife's insurance renewal has come in (through a broker) and was reduced by 12% on last year

    Best to shop around
    Never stay with thee same same firm as a matter of course. Get them to undercut the best offer you get, and refuse to accept any increase. If they dont budge.. move.works for me every time.
  • Leon said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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
    Perhaps as a woman of colour she takes a firm view on issues like racial discrimination. I rather like Woke. I thought she generally had a bit more wellie than Starmer, not a high bar obvs.
  • eekeek Posts: 17,300


    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.

    I think that's the important thing here - if you have electoral invincibility you continue to have it until suddenly it disappears.

    For Thatcher, the Poll Tax destroyed it, for Blair - the Iraq War. Something will occur that destroys Boris but until we look back we won't recognise it until suddenly the issue becomes blindly obvious.
  • Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    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.
    Sadly, I agree.

    The transition of America from majority white to majority non-white was always going to be painful, but add in the explosion of Woke Lunacy and there is a strong chance the transition will be violent. And in the background is the demotion of America from global hegemon to mere rival-to-China, further destabilising American politics

    If it does get violent, it's not obvious who will win
    It would likely end in nuclear war so I am guessing nobody would win.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,102
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    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 am sure it would have the same cathartic healing effect as a referendum campaign, only better.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 33,302

    Leon said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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
    Perhaps as a woman of colour she takes a firm view on issues like racial discrimination. I rather like Woke. I thought she generally had a bit more wellie than Starmer, not a high bar obvs.
    Labour aren't trying to win your vote though, they already have it.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 5,051
    edited October 2021
    Never mind all that.
    Leafing through PlaceNorthWest, I come across this:
    https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/shortlist-revealed-for-location-of-worlds-first-fusion-energy-plant/

    Now, I will forgive PNW its rather idiosyncratic angle - it is, after all, concerned with property matters in the North West of England rather than science - but this is jolly exciting, no? World's first fusion energy plant? This is bigger news than Claudia Webbe or Kier Starmer's polling woes or arguments about transsexuals. Bigger news than covid, in fact.
    Now, granted, it might not work, but given how much we've enjoyed speculating about an imminent aliens story over the past 18 months (granted, that would be bigger than fusion power), I think we can allow ourselves a little excitement about this. The fact that it might happen at all, I mean. Not the fact that it might be happening specifically in Cumbria.

    EDIT: Also - and I'm getting drawn into the PNW angle now - curiously non-ugly for a power station. Rather finer than Heysham.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,947
    Another mirror image of BJO here. Did not vote Labour in any of the 7 elections, local or national, in the Corbyn era, culminating in a GE19 Conservative protest vote, but have voted Labour since and am firmly in the Labour Voting Intention camp for the next GE.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,785

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    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.
    Indeed though I don't think its right to pin the divisions on just Boris.

    He wasn't responsible for creating the repellant FBPE echo chamber.
    Pinning it on him sounds negative. Although I don't like it I think it is clever politics. In the same circumstances I would expect other Govts to do the same, although I don't think they should.

    Re the FBPE echo chamber I assume you are referring to twitter stuff as I haven't seen any of it and I think you referred to it before as being twitter. I'm sure you are right, but just like me most of the Red Wall Tories won't have seen this, but what they will have seen is the Government stuff on the news so I am more inclined to think the bigger impact will be from Tory propaganda with little or no Labour or LD propaganda to counter it breaking through.

    I don't like it obviously, but I don't blame them. Others have suggested this will backfire as people now start questioning why hasn't Brexit been done when we were offered a ready oven solution. Being a pessimist I think they are wrong and it isn't going to backfire and Boris will keep the Tory lead, but I hope I am wrong.
  • MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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
    Perhaps as a woman of colour she takes a firm view on issues like racial discrimination. I rather like Woke. I thought she generally had a bit more wellie than Starmer, not a high bar obvs.
    Labour aren't trying to win your vote though, they already have it.
    True. This is the downside of having party members choose party leaders, I suppose. I also thought she gave off less off a London centric Remoaner twat vibe than Starmer did, which I saw as a positive despite being a London centric Remoaner twat myself.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 38,102

    O/t but.
    My car insurance renewal notice is just in. Increase of just under 15% on last year. A short spell on comparison sites beckons.

    Actually my wife's insurance renewal has come in (through a broker) and was reduced by 12% on last year

    Best to shop around
    Never stay with thee same same firm as a matter of course. Get them to undercut the best offer you get, and refuse to accept any increase. If they dont budge.. move.works for me every time.
    I had this just yesterday with my house insurance, which according to national surveys is getting cheaper this year because so many more people are working at home.

    They wanted a 30% increase, and I phone up to protest. “There’s already a a discount on your account”, they say. “That’s because you tried to put my premium up 30% last year and I wasn’t having it”, I reply, adding that lots of other companies were, according to moneysupermarket, ready to offer me cheaper. “How about just a 15% increase?”, they say.

    I have now switched, for a saving of about 15% on last year.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,888
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    I am looking forward to the post Starmer era.
    .

    So if you can't say anything constructive, it's time to shut up.

    On the contrary its time for those hoping for a Labour revival to wake up rather than sleepwalking to another terrible result.

    Perfect time to speak up. nothing to lose
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,431

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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
    Perhaps as a woman of colour she takes a firm view on issues like racial discrimination. I rather like Woke. I thought she generally had a bit more wellie than Starmer, not a high bar obvs.
    Labour aren't trying to win your vote though, they already have it.
    True. This is the downside of having party members choose party leaders, I suppose. I also thought she gave off less off a London centric Remoaner twat vibe than Starmer did, which I saw as a positive despite being a London centric Remoaner twat myself.
    Nandy is underestimated. She's neither left nor right, and her views are on occasion unpredictable. She's warm and personable, relates well to people, and can be very funny. She's against racism and violence against women; if that's too woke for some, so be it. Her rhetoric against Chinese and Russian misdeeds is often stronger than the government's. And she really understands the plight facing Wigan and the hundreds of other small and medium-sized towns. I expect her to be the next leader after Starmer.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,191
    edited October 2021

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    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?
    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Bit of a mistake by her to put her signature to documents and be part of groups that want to repeal the GRA then.
    Here is their submission to Parliament. Worth reading carefully.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17828/pdf/
    Yes, i have read it. That's how I know it says

    "Given that the GRA was introduced largely to solve problems relating to
    marriage, which no longer exist, there are good grounds for repealing"
    A bit naughty of you Alistair because the very next sentences state what their recommendations actually are:-

    "However, since this may be deemed unfeasible, it is crucial to make it clear that what is referred to as “gender” means “legal (or fictional) sex”. The words “gender” and “gender identity” should be removed from legislation since they are impossible to define.
    35. Recommendation: The Government should review the way in which section 22, on regulations to be prescribed, interact in practice with other public interests: e.g. equality, safeguarding, healthcare, public safety and statistics.
    36. Recommendation: Introduce an amendment to the Equality Act clarifying that the protected characteristic of sex means birth sex. Transsexuals will also be protected against sex discrimination in their adopted “legal sex” on the basis of discrimination by perception (that is, if a transwoman suffers discrimination because of having been perceived by someone to be a woman)."


    So no recommendation to repeal the GRA.

    For clarity I would not support any repeal of it. It is changing it to allow a change of legal sex without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria (ie self-ID) which I am opposed to. Not gender reassignment following such diagnosis. And, to be absolutely clear, I think more should be done to make such diagnosis and treatment available much more promptly than it is now. The waiting times in the few clinics which deal with this condition are long, as they are for mental health conditions generally. Sadly, mental health resources have a Cinderella status within the NHS and I don't see that changing any time soon.

    It is worth noting that the GRA was brought in by Labour as an adjunct to civil partnerships. Yet another of those too clever by half bits of legislation Labour brought in without thinking things through. There are undoubtedly issues with any form of self-ID or GRA changes and Labour would do well to engage with those raising concerns rather than shouting abuse at them, refusing to talk to them and uttering scientific nonsense into the bargain as well.

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,888

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    I live next to Staveley where the Government have invested heavily. New stuff going up everywhere. Parks modernised, new football pitches new train stations new skills centres new canal infrastructure (there is a bridge over it being built).

    None of it invisible half of it already delivered.

    Johnson knows how to win votes in Staveley

    What has 50 years of Labour Councils ever done for Staveley?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,440

    kinabalu said:

    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?
    He's overwrought and so, I sense, are you. Dating is a private matter and always will be. It's not going to be policed in some sinister dystopian future where biological sex is erased. Seeing the issue that way is imo ludicrous. Several countries have without mishap implemented similar GRA reforms to those proposed by Mrs May, since shelved, which lie at the heart of this debate. The real practical debate, I mean, not the culture warmongering. I support an easier gender change process, and inclusivity rather than exclusion as a default, and I think much of the opposition to it is based on ignorance and prejudice. There's nonsense on the "transactivist" side too. Probably some of it comes from frustration at seeing the reforms completely ditched and the issue sacrificed to caricature and dogwhistle and performative "commonsense". Whatever, it's far from the biggest issue facing the country, but the debate on here is always VERY one-sided so I end up posting on it more than I otherwise would.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,858
    DavidL said:

    kinabalu said:

    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?
    Bloody hell, do people actually get paid for writing rubbish like this? I am cisgender and heterosexual. If I was gay the pool of people who I might potentially want to date would fall from 51% of the population (females) to roughly 5%, that is 10% of the male population. So I would have roughly 10x less chance of finding someone to put up with me and find the happiness that a supportive relationship can bring. But that would be because my entirely legitimate predilections would mean that I was fishing in a smaller pool. It would not be because society was anti-gay or homophobic.

    The idea that society is either homophobic or transphobic because those who don't have the same predilections don't want to date them is, frankly, bonkers. We are obliged to accept and be non judgmental about their choices. We are not obliged to sleep with those we do not fancy.
    'Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating...'

    That should have been the only line written in the first place.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,677

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    Jonathan said:

    Cookie said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    I am looking forward to the post Starmer era.
    It does look like Labour is already conceding defeat.

    Some modest gains as a platform for the 2028/9 GE seems to be as good as it gets, like Howard making the path for Cameron.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 27,036
    from a brief skim, that looks interesting.

    Back in the 1990s, I had a friend who lived in Brimington (near Staveley). He once said to me: "We had a railway, a coal mine, and a benzene plant. The railway's closed, the mine's shut, and the plant's at half shift."

    (I was bemused he didn't mention the ironworks or brickworks. I once had to go and pick up a tonne of wet (unfired) bricks for a job from the brickworks ...)

    The railway has reopened as the Barrow Hill museum, and whilst the coal mine and benzene plant are long gone, when I've been back in the last few years, some new life seems to be creeping in.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,823

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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.
    It depends on whether you think the party exists only as a fan club for the latest leader, or if it has an existence that is greater than that, so you can continue to support the general principles of the party even if you're not happy with the current leadership's interpretation/implementation of them.

    If you insist on only being a member of a party if you are in complete agreement with the leader then you end up with many small fractured parties. There's a degree of compromise.

    I can see why increasing taxes would be a compromise too far for you, but I don't see that Starmer has done all that much to outrage anyone. That's part of his problem.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,440

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    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.
    If uncommon = relates to an awful lot of people.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,575
    New thread.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,191
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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?
    He's overwrought and so, I sense, are you. Dating is a private matter and always will be. It's not going to be policed in some sinister dystopian future where biological sex is erased. Seeing the issue that way is imo ludicrous. Several countries have without mishap implemented similar GRA reforms to those proposed by Mrs May, since shelved, which lie at the heart of this debate. The real practical debate, I mean, not the culture warmongering. I support an easier gender change process, and inclusivity rather than exclusion as a default, and I think much of the opposition to it is based on ignorance and prejudice. There's nonsense on the "transactivist" side too. Probably some of it comes from frustration at seeing the reforms completely ditched and the issue sacrificed to caricature and dogwhistle and performative "commonsense". Whatever, it's far from the biggest issue facing the country, but the debate on here is always VERY one-sided so I end up posting on it more than I otherwise would.
    It simply is not true that there has been no mishap in those countries where self-ID has been introduced.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,835
    So glad we've cleared up the GBA Alliance want to make quite a lot of changes to the GRA and do not want to keep it as is.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 26,440

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Britain Elects
    @BritainElects
    ·
    51m
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)
    LDEM: 9% (-)
    GRN: 8% (-1)
    REFUK: 4%: (-)

    via
    @YouGov
    , 12 - 13 Oct
    Chgs. w/ 06 Oct

    SKS fans please explain

    Worst result since 1935 on the cards

    Get KotN a seat quick.
    Worst result since 2019, you mean?
    SKS defender in chief arrives

    As I say please explain

    CON: 41% (+2)
    LAB: 31% (-)

    SKS approval -44 (-7)
    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
    Perhaps as a woman of colour she takes a firm view on issues like racial discrimination. I rather like Woke. I thought she generally had a bit more wellie than Starmer, not a high bar obvs.
    Labour aren't trying to win your vote though, they already have it.
    True. This is the downside of having party members choose party leaders, I suppose. I also thought she gave off less off a London centric Remoaner twat vibe than Starmer did, which I saw as a positive despite being a London centric Remoaner twat myself.
    Nandy is underestimated. She's neither left nor right, and her views are on occasion unpredictable. She's warm and personable, relates well to people, and can be very funny. She's against racism and violence against women; if that's too woke for some, so be it. Her rhetoric against Chinese and Russian misdeeds is often stronger than the government's. And she really understands the plight facing Wigan and the hundreds of other small and medium-sized towns. I expect her to be the next leader after Starmer.
    I know it's a cliche but for me she has "like to have a drink and a chinwag with" appeal.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Dura_Ace said:

    Roger said:



    In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be?

    Kia Ceed.

    tories = 1954 Austin Champ painted for WW2 reenactment. Possible blown head gasket.

    LibDem = Bus pass

    Greens = BMW i4 M50 in San Remo Green

    SNP = Argyll Turbo GT
    I believe Donald Neilson owned a WW2 liveried Austin Champ to play at still being a soldier.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,578


    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.

    All true. What SKS is doing OK on is being there as the only alternative PM we have got. However the nature of his party remains a significant obstacle; as does the nature of the alliance necessary to form a different government - especially as to where does the SNP fit in.

    If they help form a government it will be with a view to getting a vote which means that same government would eventually fall (the Commons without Scottish MPs will be a Tory majority). If they don't help, no government looks feasible.



  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,626
    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Bit of a mistake by her to put her signature to documents and be part of groups that want to repeal the GRA then.
    Here is their submission to Parliament. Worth reading carefully.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17828/pdf/
    Yes, i have read it. That's how I know it says

    "Given that the GRA was introduced largely to solve problems relating to
    marriage, which no longer exist, there are good grounds for repealing"
    You missed a bit:

    However, since this may be deemed unfeasible, it is crucial to make it clear that what is referred to as “gender” means “legal (or fictional) sex”. The words “gender” and “gender identity” should be removed from legislation since they are impossible to define.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,835

    Alistair said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    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.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Bit of a mistake by her to put her signature to documents and be part of groups that want to repeal the GRA then.
    Here is their submission to Parliament. Worth reading carefully.

    https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/17828/pdf/
    Yes, i have read it. That's how I know it says

    "Given that the GRA was introduced largely to solve problems relating to
    marriage, which no longer exist, there are good grounds for repealing"
    You missed a bit:

    However, since this may be deemed unfeasible, it is crucial to make it clear that what is referred to as “gender” means “legal (or fictional) sex”. The words “gender” and “gender identity” should be removed from legislation since they are impossible to define.
    Ah, so they want to change the GRA?

    Seems at odds with Stocks firm insistence that she does not want to change the GRA. No wonder people think she wants to change the GRA. What with being part of a group who want to change the GRA
This discussion has been closed.