As far as punters are concerned the Tories are set to lose their majority at the next election – pol
As far as punters are concerned the Tories are set to lose their majority at the next election – politicalbetting.com
The Bedata.io chart above shows what’s been happening on the Betfair next general election overall majority betting market. As can be seen a CON majority, now a 34% chance, has risen to its highest level in a year while a LAB majority has dropped to 22%. My guess is that the recent moves are in response to the positive polling news for the Tories.
Comments
-
First again. Just in time to call it a night0
-
The more remarkable thing is that punters give Labour a 22% chance. Personally I think it should be sub 1%.0
-
No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.
Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.
So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.4 -
Everyone seems to have a hill to climb... Tories after 14 years to hold a fractious coalition of red wall, wealthy southern seats and towns across E&W after 3 years of tax rises, Labour to actually wins enough seats anywhere, Lib Dems to just stay in double figures....0
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.0 -
Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.1
-
A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.0 -
Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.ydoethur said:No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.
Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.
So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.0 -
The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.ydoethur said:
A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:
26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
Straight/Heterosexual
Gay or Lesbian
Bisexual
Other sexual orientation (free text field)
That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!0 -
1932 was the year the Samuelite Liberals, who were the one group operating with an independent party structure (other than the Conservatives themselves) formally withdrew. Samuel quit as Home Secretary that October, although it wasn’t until 1933 that they formally returned to the opposition benches.JohnO said:
Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.ydoethur said:No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.
Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.
So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.
Edit - although yes, sorry, it began in 1931 not 1929. Too early, before my morning cuppa! 1929-31 was c+s from Lib to Lab, not a coalition.0 -
No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?tlg86 said:
The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.ydoethur said:
A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:
26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
Straight/Heterosexual
Gay or Lesbian
Bisexual
Other sexual orientation (free text field)
That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!0 -
Double post.0
-
Polling can change remarkably quickly. All outcomes are possible.
FPT
29:50 sounds comprehensive but then stranger changes have happened.MikeL said:People always say there is overwhelming support for the Monarchy. Well tonight's poll in the Mail has:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?
Yes 29%
No 50%
That's hardly overwhelming support.
And there has never been any kind of campaign with equal prominence given to both sides. Almost every single member of the establishment and newspaper etc supports the Monarchy - partly because it's a merry-go-round for them of honours and top jobs.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9344121/Poll-reveals-majority-Britons-want-Harry-Meghan-stripped-titles.htmln
Take these YouGov polls:
19/08/13 Yes 29% No 59%
22/10/12 Yes 29% No 55%
The subject of those YouGov polls? Scottish independence. As it stands the Daily Mail poll on the Royalty gives less support than Scotland's place in the UK had in 2012 and 2013.
Anything can happen between now and polling day.0 -
"Covid-19: NHS Test and Trace 'no clear impact' despite £37bn budget"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-563408310 -
I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone admits to criminality (but you never know), I was thinking more clever remarks.ydoethur said:
No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?tlg86 said:
The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.ydoethur said:
A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:
26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
Straight/Heterosexual
Gay or Lesbian
Bisexual
Other sexual orientation (free text field)
That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!0 -
Perhaps we should have a PB competition for who can come up with the silliest one?tlg86 said:
I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone admits to criminality (but you never know), I was thinking more clever remarks.ydoethur said:
No it won’t, because as I said, people won’t answer it honestly. They may get the odd silly remark (‘I fuck plant life’) but they’re hardly likely to get people admitting to criminality, are they?tlg86 said:
The issue isn't about any individual, more the statistics produced. I worked on the 2011 Census and I'm almost certain that every person record is assigned to either male or female even if someone doesn't answer or selects both options. It would certainly show up if there was a skew either way. What I never knew until I was QA'ing the results last time is that, roughly, for every 100 girls that are born, 105 boys are born.ydoethur said:
A question on sexuality was deleted from the 2011 census when it occurred to the writers that paedophiles and bestials might not be entirely honest in their answers...tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Edit - I would guess most transgender people will just fill it in with whatever gender they identify as now anyway, on the basis that nobody will actually check.
On the sexuality question, the reason it was omitted in 2011 was because the pilot found response rates fell when it was included. But they've decided to include it this time:
26. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?
Straight/Heterosexual
Gay or Lesbian
Bisexual
Other sexual orientation (free text field)
That free text field should make for interesting reading for the analysts at the ONS!
NOTE - this is not meant seriously.0 -
It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.1
-
Actually, I'm surprise asexual wasn't a listed option in that Census sexuality question.1
-
Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.-1 -
Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.moonshine said:It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.
The problem is the time it will take.
I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.0 -
Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
Why did I interpret “c+s from Lib” as involving an uncharacteristically rude word?ydoethur said:
1932 was the year the Samuelite Liberals, who were the one group operating with an independent party structure (other than the Conservatives themselves) formally withdrew. Samuel quit as Home Secretary that October, although it wasn’t until 1933 that they formally returned to the opposition benches.JohnO said:
Surely 1931? And as the Tories won a crushing victory with a huge overall majority that year, surely it was a Coalition In Name Only.ydoethur said:No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.
Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.
So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.
Edit - although yes, sorry, it began in 1931 not 1929. Too early, before my morning cuppa! 1929-31 was c+s from Lib to Lab, not a coalition.2 -
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be a key reason he acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her for such a long time. I think he admitted himself he was angry about it.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
They are waiting for a big catastrophe or event to swing the dial. But who’s to say that said event doesn’t birth a new party as it has in so many other democracies? Or as others have said, birth a reinvention of the ruling party that effectively resets the clock (as Brexit)?ydoethur said:
Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.moonshine said:It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.
The problem is the time it will take.
I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.
It’s lazy and unbecoming of someone aspiring to run a major country.3 -
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.2 -
Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.
And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.0 -
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.2 -
She's got better taste than I thought!WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?2 -
You're watching It. Jeeeztlg86 said:Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.
0 -
Must see telly.squareroot2 said:
You're watching It. Jeeeztlg86 said:Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.
0 -
His opinion being to say someone talking about their struggles with mental health and feeling suicidal was lying about their mental health and feeling suicidal, without any evidence they were lying, while his employer is running a Get Britain Talking campaign about mental health awareness.TOPPING said:
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Oops.1 -
His running of that fake story about abuse by UK troops (Queens Royal Lancashire) in the wake of Aby Ghraib iirc, when he knew the photos were fakes, and especially the refusal to admit it was faked, was unforgiveable.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/14/pressandpublishing.iraqandthemedia
Beyond Johann Hari levels of self-serving shit. He's a bad 'un.7 -
To be fair he got people talking about mental health...Philip_Thompson said:
His opinion being to say someone talking about their struggles with mental health and feeling suicidal was lying about their mental health and feeling suicidal, without any evidence they were lying, while his employer is running a Get Britain Talking campaign about mental health awareness.TOPPING said:
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Oops.0 -
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?0 -
Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.WhisperingOracle said:
Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Phonehacking.2 -
Phone hacking.MarqueeMark said:
Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.WhisperingOracle said:
Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Phonehacking.
Fake photos against soldiers.
Now ridiculing mental health.
Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.1 -
I think Morgan's story is that she DM'd him after an event, then they had a nice lunch etc, and she used him to climb the society ladder.WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
I hadn't twigged that M started as a suitcase model on Deal or No Deal, amongst other things.
But then Grace Kelly started with TV parts.0 -
Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.TOPPING said:
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
I think that last one is unfair. He was clear that it is a very serious issue, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else has to automatically believe her.Philip_Thompson said:
Phone hacking.MarqueeMark said:
Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.WhisperingOracle said:
Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Phonehacking.
Fake photos against soldiers.
Now ridiculing mental health.
Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.1 -
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.1 -
So he met her once and he feels jilted and entitled to be closer?Foxy said:
Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.TOPPING said:
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
That's rather creepy. Even if it was a date, perhaps it went badly and she thought he was insufferable.2 -
To reflexively say without any evidence that someone is lying about their mental health is pretty reprehensible.tlg86 said:
I think that last one is unfair. He was clear that it is a very serious issue, but that doesn't mean he or anyone else has to automatically believe her.Philip_Thompson said:
Phone hacking.MarqueeMark said:
Incredibly fortunate to have had the past decade he has had still in the public eye.WhisperingOracle said:
Excellent as a provocateur, rather than a journalist, I would say. Perpetual anger and narcissism, with the occasional entertaining flourish, which is partly why he got on so well with Trump for such a long time, I think.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
Phonehacking.
Fake photos against soldiers.
Now ridiculing mental health.
Hope he doesn't end up on GB News.
If someone says they're feeling or felt suicidal and you don't have a nice word to say about it, perhaps don't say anything at all. Plenty of people have criticised her without crossing the line on that.0 -
It seems a likely scenario. Meghan only appears about a third narcissist to me, whereas Morgan is three quarters.Philip_Thompson said:
So he met her once and he feels jilted and entitled to be closer?Foxy said:
Yes. Mrs Foxy watches GMB when she isn't working. He is absolutely fixated. Apparently she ghosted him after meeting her for what he thought was a date, she just drinks with a n acquaintance.TOPPING said:
Does he have one of those? She is in the news and he gave his opinion.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
That's rather creepy. Even if it was a date, perhaps it went badly and she thought he was insufferable.1 -
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.0 -
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.1 -
Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.1 -
The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?OldKingCole said:Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.
And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.2 -
When will they throw Kate under the bus?Foxy said:
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.0 -
Yes, I wasn't meaning to say the institution comes out it well either. It strikes me as a collision between a household that still didn't take some important corrective steps after the Diana disaster, completely incurious about how other European monarchies manage things, with a woman embarked on an idealistic project but also incurious in some other areas and not really wanting to listen that much either. Disaster.Foxy said:
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.0 -
Why would they?tlg86 said:
When will they throw Kate under the bus?Foxy said:
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.0 -
Even her supporters on here didn't believe the Canada nonsense.NerysHughes said:
Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
This does seem to be something that is being completely glossed over. There are many hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country experiencing periodic or ongoing struggles of individuals with mental health issues of varying degrees of seriousness. Most families don't have "HR departments" to go to to try and work through those issues - the primary source for help has to come from the closest relatives in conjunction with whatever external help can be sought.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
And the comparison with Princess Diana doesn't help them in this respect - because one of the whole issues there was marital breakdown and the explicit presumed absence of loving support from her husband.
Many of the claims about the difficulties they were under effectively seem to stem from press intrusion and treatment - the criticism of the Royal Family themselves seems (the headline grabbing racial accusation notwithstanding) largely to be of a secondary nature - that they didn't do enough to provide support and protection from the press. But it's very difficult to know exactly what they thought should be done about it - it's easy to criticise for failings, without having solutions. For obvious reasons the Royal Family's relationship with the press is extremely delicate - they simply cannot be at permanent war with them, nor can they insist that they be brought to heel. Royal interventions with the press are infrequent and generally very carefully targeted, and by nature they cannot make an issue of everything they don't like and have to put up with.
Fundamentally that is where life in the UK and the US differ. Many/most(?) people in this country have a sort of contradictory view of the press. They think it is too intrusive, has far too much power, abuses that power frequently, and is often a malign force in the body politic and public life. But what people desperately want is self regulation - they want the press to realise that themselves and control themselves as a result - they are extremely wary of any attempt to take legal measures to restrict their activity. Because of where that can ultimately lead.4 -
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.0 -
Its the demands for privacy they made and the action they took against various newspapers, then Harry does the Late Late Show and they both do the Oprah interview giving very personal and damning information about Harry's family whilst his Grandfather lies very ill in hospital. Its no wonder Meghan's family can't stand her and unfortunately for Harry, when Megham dumps him in the next couple of years he will have burnt his bridges with his family.tlg86 said:
Even her supporters on here didn't believe the Canada nonsense.NerysHughes said:
Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.5 -
Not as must see as the apology to MM the GMB bosses wanted him to give live on air.TOPPING said:
Must see telly.squareroot2 said:
You're watching It. Jeeeztlg86 said:Watching GMB this morning for the first and last time. They'll get massive ratings today. And then they'll crash.
So he took one for Team Royal - and moved the new cycle from Meghan and Harry to Piers Morgan.2 -
Bl@@dy h%ll there's isn't another one! Can't be!DecrepiterJohnL said:
The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?OldKingCole said:Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.
And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.1 -
All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.0 -
-
Thanks for the reply.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
The further bit of my comment got lost.
I'm trying to explore the relations between the concepts of gender / sex, and where sexual orientation fits in in current thinking.0 -
That the interview would "reveal" that she had suicidal thoughts is about the most unsurprising aspect about the whole thing. That doesn't mean it was a lie and she may indeed have been in a very fragile mental state at times. But the fact that it was stated doesn't tell you anything either way - firstly because virtually every interview of this nature that i can recall such a claim, and that is possible because i'm sure virtually every one in the world in any sort of difficult position has moments of depression where on some level suicide is contemplated. So everyone can say it and be not directly be lying by saying it.NerysHughes said:
Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.0 -
There was a bit early on.tlg86 said:
When will they throw Kate under the bus?Foxy said:
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
At present Will and Kate serve as the useful foil in the soap opera, that the others can contrast. Even then there are rumours such as the fall out with Rose Hanbury.
0 -
I tell the government I'm a Jedi.state_go_away said:
All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It is none of the state's business.0 -
My employer keeps asking for this info too.state_go_away said:
All well and good but dont see why it is necessary for the government to demand to know this of people on a census. Employers routinely ask this now and I always refuse to give an answer (along with what religion I am )Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
Like you I will not provide this information - it has nothing to do with my ability to perform the job.3 -
It's also impossible to dispute. What could Piers Morgan have possibly known about her mental health? Even though his journalist side might have been screaming out "BULLLLLSHIT......", he can't say it. Because Meghan's mental state is unimpeachable.alex_ said:
That the interview would "reveal" that she had suicidal thoughts is about the most unsurprising aspect about the whole thing. That doesn't mean it was a lie and she may indeed have been in a very fragile mental state at times. But the fact that it was stated doesn't tell you anything either way - firstly because virtually every interview of this nature that i can recall such a claim, and that is possible because i'm sure virtually every one in the world in any sort of difficult position has moments of depression where on some level suicide is contemplated. So everyone can say it and be not directly be lying by saying it.NerysHughes said:
Its not strange, its made up, she wanted to be a Rapunzel Princess, she didn't realise she had a lifetime in front of her of being a very minor royal opening Community Centres shaking hands with the great unwashed. She pretended she wanted peace,quiet and privacy and went to Canada for a month and then moved to LA and made sure she was all over the press.tlg86 said:
I didn't actually hear his comments where he said he didn't believe her, but I did hear him make the point that if what she alleges is true, then what was Harry doing? Is it really plausible that he couldn't have helped sort something out? It does sound rather strange.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.1 -
Re: talk of elderly monarchs as a 'problem' in the previous thread. FFS these days it appears that a US Presidential Election candidate has to be 70 to even get a look in. And they actually have serious power!0
-
I remember she had a bit of a wobble as to whether she really wanted it - but that seemed sensible, because at least she was acknowledging that she wasn't just marrying any old guy.Foxy said:
There was a bit early on.tlg86 said:
When will they throw Kate under the bus?Foxy said:
Marina Hyde is on the button today:WhisperingOracle said:
I think she's someone both sensitive enough to fall victim to other people, and ruthless enough to toss other people aside. Similary, she was genuinely idealistic enough to think she was making a positive difference to other people by joining the monarchy, and incurious and self-orientated enough not really to listen too long for the institution's own side of the story on how that might work. A complicated person.moonshine said:
I know it’s only Piers Morgan. But from reports it does seem to be true that this happens to most everyone she knows. Makes you feel the most special person in the world and then throws you aside when the next rung of the ladder appears. Wendell Pierce (aka Suits Rachel’s Dad) was pretty scathing yesterday and has been in the past too.WhisperingOracle said:
It seems he once went out with her and then she ignored him ever after, which might be the reason he then acted as conductor-in-chief for the UK press vendetta against her. I think he admitted himself that he was angry.Foxy said:
Apart from his strange and evil fixation on dissing Meghan he wasn't bad.TOPPING said:Shame about Piers Morgan. I thought and think he's great.
I know he doesn't satisfy either the TOWIE- watching, or the PB if only every journalist was as good as I would be contingent but I thought he was excellent at his job.
It’s a strategy that’s certainly worked from a social climbing perspective so far but where does it ultimately lead once you’ve done it to the Queen of England?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369552893041389571?s=19
And in the Times, a similar but less caustic piece:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1369545972653699073?s=19
Both articles are worth the read. The Royal Family has years of form at turning spouses into the villain of the soap opera.
Camilla is the interesting exception, who was considered unsuitable in Charles bachelor days, leading to the three in a marriage problem. She doesn't get great press, but not the vilification that the others got. Being a horsey posh helps, I suppose.
At present Will and Kate serve as the useful foil in the soap opera, that the others can contrast. Even then there are rumours such as the fall out with Rose Hanbury.
Rose Hanbury? Never heard of her until now. Perhaps the press covered it up, but blimey, that would be a huge story to pass up if you thought it was true.0 -
Think you're right.ydoethur said:No party has ever won an overall majority after 14 or more consecutive years in power. It’s only happened once after 13 and that was a skin of the teeth job (and with hindsight, a disaster for the party concerned). So there is a logic to this position.
Equally, it should be pointed out that this is a government like no other. Not only was it in a coalition for five years - only the second full coalition in peacetime in the age of universal suffrage (the national government of 1929-32 being the other example) - but Johnson hit the reset button in dramatic fashion in 2019. That was the first time since 1865 a government that had gone backwards at the last election increased its majority, and the first time ever that a government increased its majority after more than eight years in office. Plus we shouldn’t forget that boundary reforms will cost Labour several more seats before we even start.
So the odds look reasonable to me, but the value might be in betting on a Tory majority - even if a slim one.
I'd also point out that everyone knows that the economic picture is going to be tricky for a good while. Whilst most people are fairly happy with what the government is doing it's clear that issues such as the recent NHS pay offer will be troublesome in the future for the government. Once more normal politics resumes there will be lots of these. Overall the Tories have won the argument that we should be careful where possible on spending, but that balance is a delicate one.
I think there's also some effect in that political bettors probably on balance want a Tory government and thus are slightly inclined towards not doubling up on their interests.
I backed the Tories and layed Labour a few weeks ago in modest size, I've broadly flattened out now as I think the pricing is now about right given ydoethurs comments and my thoughts.0 -
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.0 -
We need to tighten up those cloning laws....OldKingCole said:
Bl@@dy h%ll there's isn't another one! Can't be!DecrepiterJohnL said:
The Times favours Michael Gove the former Times leader writer and columnist, or a different Michael Gove?OldKingCole said:Morning everybody. Not nice at all here this morning, although not as wet yet as forecast.
And in The Times apparently it's suggested that Priti Patel should be moved/sacked and replaced with Gove. Which might be an interesting idea.1 -
-
When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.0 -
Let me add a question to both.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?
I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.1 -
Mike - thanks for the header.
I am far too timid to bet on anything this fat out :-) .0 -
Gen y is a synonym for millenialMattW said:
Let me add a question to both.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?
I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.0 -
Wasteful!Philip_Thompson said:
When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.0 -
-
If someone changes their sexual orientation, such as a friend of mine, formerly happily heterosexually married with children, coming out as gay, it is generally taken that he was always gay, just repressed and living a lie.MattW said:
Let me add a question to both.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?
I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.
On the other hand, I know straight people who had homosexual experiences as youths , but became firmly heterosexual later. Were they also living a lie, or are they doing so now? No one can know, other than the individual.
I do think that identity is a flexible thing, and how we see ourselves, and how we interact with the world changes over time. I don't see why sexuality should be more rigid than any other durable aspect of self.1 -
Thanks. Missed that.Pulpstar said:
Gen y is a synonym for millenialMattW said:
Let me add a question to both.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
So if sexual orientation is innate / unchangeable, why do people change their sexual orientation - either as I pointed out ('sometimes I say this, sometimes that'), or 2 or 3 times in a lifetime?
I think there's also an aspect of different use of language between say Gen X/Y and Millenials. And also an element of fashion. How big that is, I am not in a position to judge easily.0 -
I think that is the key point - the cultural/societal pressures to stay in a particular lane are vastly diminished compared to (say) twenty years ago.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
4 -
0
-
Translation: I was sick of the early mornings anyway.Andy_JS said:0 -
Labour's problem is that a 'big catastrophe' indeed has occurred. !00k + dead, borrowing trillions you can't pay back, nil returns on safe investment for the middling sort, leaving the world's largest free trade area, renewing the Irish problem. All that and the dial has not swung.moonshine said:
They are waiting for a big catastrophe or event to swing the dial. But who’s to say that said event doesn’t birth a new party as it has in so many other democracies? Or as others have said, birth a reinvention of the ruling party that effectively resets the clock (as Brexit)?ydoethur said:
Well, it will work given that there is no other national party left.moonshine said:It’s a brave strategy on Labour’s part to sit around and do nothing and rely on the political pendulum eventually swinging back their way just because.
The problem is the time it will take.
I suppose if the Tories lost their majority total blandness might be a help to Labour in negotiating a coalition agreement. After all, there will be little to disagree with. But it would also leave them with fewer seats and therefore probably in a weaker position to negotiate at all.
It’s lazy and unbecoming of someone aspiring to run a major country.
The Tory genius for reinvention is at its height, while Labour still seem stuck in a conflict between socialists and social democrats; not seeming to notice that the Tories have stolen the social democrat/centrist left clothes and run.
2 -
Boris has a piece in the Telegraph trying to save the union by promising a ton of road and rail projects. Dualing the A1 etc.
"So together with Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, I have asked Sir Peter Hendy to address the problem of Union connectivity. He has just produced his interim report, before final conclusions in the summer."
"why are we stopping HS2 in England?"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/strengthening-sinews-transport-network-will-make-road-recovery/0 -
A couple of interesting ideas there.alex_ said:
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.5 -
Why are we stopping HS2 at Birmingham might be a more immediate question for the PM to be asking his ministers.0
-
On topic, it's too early for me to be playing this market because the parameters for it haven't firmed up yet.
They will in 12-18 months time because by then we'll know (a) how Scotland is likely to play out (b) how the Covid recovery is turning out (c) Starmer will be set in stone and (d) we'll know Johnson's new cabinet and how it's managing the recovery.
I'm assuming the election will be by May 2024, and it's the spring-summer of 2022 that'll firm up the horizon for it.
That's when I'll start to place bets.1 -
The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.CarlottaVance said:
And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.1 -
And what did they say of you ?Philip_Thompson said:
When I was at university in the early 00's it was a running joke (with an element of truth) that women were only a couple of drinks away from being willing to snog each other.Foxy said:
Though the idea that gender and sexual orientation are completely unchangeable, rather than able to change with other aspects of personality development is a fairly new one.Philip_Thompson said:
I think you're wrong. The B in LGBT existed even in the late 1990s. The point and its not original is that there is a spectrum.MattW said:
I think one underlying shift here is that the great assertion that "sexual orientation is basic and unchangeable" - once gay, always gay etc - which I think has been a key campaigning point since the start of such campaigns has now changed to orientation being changeable almost at will.DecrepiterJohnL said:
That rather begs the question. I suspect trans people feel "honestly" that their sex is what their gender is. Presumably anyone who has paid a small fortune for (literally life-changing) sex reassignment surgery or whatever it is called this week feels this very strongly indeed.tlg86 said:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/09/guidance-on-sex-question-in-uk-census-must-be-changed-high-court-rules
Mr Justice Swift ordered that the guidance should be rewritten to remove the words “such as” and “or passport”, to make clear that respondents should only use the sex recorded on their birth or gender recognition certificate. A little more than an hour after the judge’s ruling the text had been changed.
The campaign group Fair Play For Women, which crowdfunded £100,000 to bring the legal challenge, had argued that the ONS wording allowed “self-identification through the back door”.
This is interesting. You'd have thought the ONS would have wanted the sex question to be as unambiguous as possible, but I suspect they were worried about a challenge from other groups.
Of course, whether or not people fill it in honestly is another matter.
Whether it makes any practical difference is another question. This strikes me as one of those "point of principle" cases designed to enrich the legal profession. I suppose the government will now be able to count the number of people whose gender is different from their birth sex and... do what exactly? Erect more lampposts? Open more libraries? Fwiw when I completed the census before this judgment, the import of this guidance passed me by.
eg Watching an interview the other day the interviewee said 'sometimes I call myself lesbian, sometimes bi."
There have always been people around who have changed their sexual orientation several times in a life, though very few that I have seen explicitly talking about it.
Then to demand that gender is a fundamental identity about which everybody else and the physical environment must realign becomes very hard to justify imo.
Correct me if you think I am wrong here. I think I have detected a change in argumentation over perhaps 15 years, certainly since say the late 1990s.
Some people are heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex and only the opposite sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but neither are they expected to do so either.
Some people are homosexual, attracted to the same sex and only the same sex. They can't help who they're attracted to, but were in the past.
Some people are bisexual, attracted to both men and women. They can't help this either, but in the past may have been able to find someone of the opposite sex they were attracted to but nowadays may not find that's the one they fall in love with, since they're no longer restricted by societies expectations.
It doesn't mean dismissing sexuality as a teenage phase, or even a right of passage. The idea of a spectrum of orientation is not quite the same as shifting along that spectrum, at different times of life.
1 -
"British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.Nigelb said:
The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.CarlottaVance said:
And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.0 -
Is Piers really thick enough to confuse the ideas of freedom of speech, and freedom to say anything you like in your capacity as a salaried employee ?Andy_JS said:
(Probably.)3 -
So you're saying the palace are as cynical a bunch of spin merchants as they claim MM to be ?WhisperingOracle said:
"British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.Nigelb said:
The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.CarlottaVance said:
And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
I wouldn't argue with that.2 -
What I find funny is the abuse that he gave politicians over the past year where he accused them of lying all the time. Apparently that was perfectly fine and the GMTV weatherman was up for that.Nigelb said:
Is Piers really thick enough to confuse the ideas of freedom of speech, and freedom to say anything you like in your capacity as a salaried employee ?Andy_JS said:
(Probably.)0 -
I wouldn't particularly say that in this particular case. I think that was a clever statement, largely in the Queen's own voice, which contained important concession along with the qualifications to ward off conservative criticism.Nigelb said:
So you're saying the palace are as cynical a bunch of spin merchants as they claim MM to be ?WhisperingOracle said:
"British reading" here means "British press reading", illustrating that the palace have done their pluralising job well so far.Nigelb said:
The so called 'British reading' is a bit weird, as it implies the palace is a single hive mind which already knows its own truth.CarlottaVance said:
And it would render "The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning..." entirely disingenuous.
I wouldn't argue with that.0 -
Personally I would put a Tory majority ahead of a hung Parliament in terms of probability without in any way making it nailed on. I would therefore agree that there is some value in the Tory majority price but I am not sure it is enough to get excited about this far out.
The facts that the Tories can lose 39 seats and still have a majority; that the boundary changes may well give them an even larger lead than that, the Labour seem to have an uninspiring leader and a dearth of alternative talent and that the Tories have several options to Boris all tend to suggest to me that they should be favourites for a majority.
The Westminster system really only produces hung Parliaments when there is a significant third party element. Whilst we have the SNP the Lib Dems seem to be making no impact at all and are probably more at risk of being supplanted by the Greens than making a breakthrough at this point.
22% support for a Labour majority is perhaps the most bewildering of all.2 -
Why are we doing HS2 at all would seem to be a more pertinent question.rottenborough said:Why are we stopping HS2 at Birmingham might be a more immediate question for the PM to be asking his ministers.
1
