The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
Much of the working class did very well under Thatcherism including a huge increase in their level of home ownership of which being allowed to buy their council house was only a part.
See Harry Enfield's 'Loadsamoney' as a stereotyped example.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
1) A very good and sensible point. The problem is that to a number of people "legally protected speech" = "Protected hate speech"
6) is very toxic to some in the Labour party. The revolution must be pure. Even if it consists of less than one person.
IRAAAAAAAAARA!!!
Better to protect some unworthy speech than lose opportunity for worthy speech out of caution.
Given that Johnson has had several children out of wedlock does a different standard apply to him?
It is not so much the having children out of wedlock by Johnson that bothers me so much as his serial abandonment of his children.
That is his real moral failure.
What's your basis for that accusation? I've not read anything about him abandoning his children.
We know more about Stalin's children then we do about Johnsons.
Good.
Stalin's children are a matter of history not of current politics. They are also now dead. It is reasonable that we know stuff about them. Johnson's children are alive today, are still minors and should not be the subject of any form of journalistic or political debate. If clear evidence emerges of actual abuse or abandonment then I would agree that is perhaps a case for genuine public interest. Otherwise his private life and particularly that of his kids should remain just that - private.
I wouldn't blame Brexit. There HGV driver shortages everywhere. And HGV drivers very much fall I to the category of jobs which ought to be paid more but where wages have been artificially depressed by the availability of the infinite Labour pool. Poaching drivers from abroad can't be the answer, either for us or for for the countries whose skilled la our we are poaching. But it's clearly ministers' fault (and their counterparts in other countries, for shortages elsewhere.) You shut the country down for a year, things like this happen. Another illustrationof the cost of lockdown that we will be paying for some time. Anyway, on happier matters, I'm on a bike ride today in the Yorkshire Dale's. Passing through settle earlier, I heard a sound I hadn't heard for a year and a half: the sound of church bells. A whole ring, too, not some socially-distanced every-other-bell. Brought a tear of happiness to my eye. We are winning.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
The Bench of Bishops is (probably) morally superior to the Labour Party, but there are good reasons why we don't let them run the country.
Eh? They seemingly have a moral right to, and help to, run the country; blame Henry VIII and HYUFD. (But not Moderators of the Kirk, for some unaccountable reason.)
I think the concern there is the historic lack of moderation in the moderating done by the Moderators.
The problem with Raynor is one of the most deep rooted and incurable ills that afflict Labour. They genuinely believe that their party is morally superior.
As a lifelong Conservative and Unionist voter I also thought Labours' moral superiority was unjustified.
Until BoZo.
Labour are unquestionably morally superior to him and his cohort.
The Bench of Bishops is (probably) morally superior to the Labour Party, but there are good reasons why we don't let them run the country.
Eh? They seemingly have a moral right to, and help to, run the country; blame Henry VIII and HYUFD. (But not Moderators of the Kirk, for some unaccountable reason.)
I think the concern there is the historic lack of moderation in the moderating done by the Moderators.
Presumably you mean the Presbyterian, not the PoliticalBetting, kind ...
PS In any case they change annually. Can't have that in the HoL, might give people the wrong ideas ...
Given that Johnson has had several children out of wedlock does a different standard apply to him?
It is not so much the having children out of wedlock by Johnson that bothers me so much as his serial abandonment of his children.
That is his real moral failure.
What's your basis for that accusation? I've not read anything about him abandoning his children.
We know more about Stalin's children then we do about Johnsons.
Good.
Stalin's children are a matter of history not of current politics. They are also now dead. It is reasonable that we know stuff about them. Johnson's children are alive today, are still minors and should not be the subject of any form of journalistic or political debate. If clear evidence emerges of actual abuse or abandonment then I would agree that is perhaps a case for genuine public interest. Otherwise his private life and particularly that of his kids should remain just that - private.
Exactly like Livingstones children, for a further example.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
Much of the working class did very well under Thatcherism including a huge increase in their level of home ownership of which being allowed to buy their council house was only a part.
See Harry Enfield's 'Loadsamoney' as a stereotyped example.
I think folk here and in the media are somewhat over-egging Rayner's faux pas. The comments were made in a knockabout, late-night session to an audience of local NW activists. It wasn't meant for public consumption, although she should have been wise enough to be more careful. I wouldn't take it so seriously. It might be a different matter if she'd used the same language in her keynote speech to the main conference.
If it was not meant for public consultation do not do it with the cameras on
It is being repeated on the media news programmes on the hour and if my wife's reaction is anything to go by it is very damaging
Thanks Big G. I've always regarded your wife as the lodestar for the direction of Labour politics.
I did say that she is non political, did not know who Rayner was, and recoiled at the remarks
I hope you are not implying that my wife is making a political point as that is just not the case
Well done Angela, "Tory scum" led R4 lunchtime news. And any belief that she was only referring to the government and not supporters is for the birds. Labour telling voters they've got it wrong again, how did that turn out last time?
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
This is turning into an absolute mare for Labour. Look at this exchange between Duffield and a Labour councilor
‘That’s what we want to hear, Dodds confirming support for self id and that trans rights are human rights - now we need the action to back it up, Starmer must remove the whip from transphobes like Duffield.’
‘So sorry to disappoint you Michael - you're clearly not a fan of women's rights. But I am not about to have the whip removed for defending them.’
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
They really are clueless.
It does seem odd on the face of it that private schools have charitable status.
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
The question was asked because it's what the Labour MP, who is too scared to attend the conference, said to attract the hate she now gets
For someone who is meant to be forensic, his answers to the three questions put to him were remarkably incoherent. It should be perfectly possible for an intelligent politician, let alone a political leader aspiring to become PM, to say that:-
1.Biological facts are not a matter of opinion or belief. And everyone is free to say them. (If he wanted to go further, he could have said that a belief in biological facts was a protected belief under the Equality Act, though personally I'd have thought it unnecessary to say this on a Sunday morning programme given the time available.) 2. People - let alone MPs - should not be threatened with physical attack or put in fear for stating facts or opinions. This is wrong. Anyone within the Labour Party doing this had no place in the party and would face disciplinary measures, if found to be doing so. 3. People with gender dysphoria should not be attacked on account of their condition. Anyone doing this had no place in the Labour Party etc. Labour would see what further measures were needed to ensure that such people had the help they needed. 4. Labour would do nothing to remove or curtail the sex-based rights rights which women have. Anyone attacking those arguing for or defending such rights had no place in the Labour Party etc. Women with all sorts of opinions were welcome within Labour and he wanted to hear from as many of them as possible, including women's groups who had previously been banned. All such groups should be able to have meetings at Labour conference without being put in fear. 5. Disagreeing with someone or having a different opinion is not a phobia or phobic and such language shut down necessary debate rather than enable it. He would play no part in this and nor should the Labour Party. 6. No one group, charity or campaigning organisation would get to decide Labour Party policy or have a veto on it. Policy in this area needed to appeal to the widest possible coalition of voters, the vast majority of whom were not Labour Party members.
How hard would it have been for an allegedly intelligent, decent lawyer with fantastic forensic skills to have come up with such a message in a week?
1) A very good and sensible point. The problem is that to a number of people "legally protected speech" = "Protected hate speech"
6) is very toxic to some in the Labour party. The revolution must be pure. Even if it consists of less than one person.
IRAAAAAAAAARA!!!
Better to protect some unworthy speech than lose opportunity for worthy speech out of caution.
That is exactly the kind of statement that would be judged offensive by the substantial segment who do not believe in free speech. They Know In Their Souls what is hate speech - and should be banned.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
The problem with Angela Rayner’s “scum” comment is not the rudeness (driven by passion, she’d argue) but what does it say about those who vote for scum? Or those who feel their values are now represented by scum? 48% of working class voters backed the Tories in 2019.
That is indeed the fundamental issue. Lots of people do think Tory ministers are scum and are voting accodringly already, and there are people who may have voted Tory last time and are regretting it, and might well be open to hearing such a blunt assessment as well.
But there will also be people who might be on the fence about having voted Tory last time, who will hear it as 'She says they are scum, I voted for them, so she thinks I am scum? Well screw that'. It's why making a distinction between Tory voters and the leadership won't always work, especially if people suspect the former is beleived even if only the latter is said (Dura Ace is admirably up front about the former).
It's a similar problem to trying to convince people they made a mistake last time. Some will come to that view on their own. Some will think it was right then but is not now. And there's nothing wrong in thinking the public made a mistake at an election - non Tory parties are bound to think the public made the wrong choice.
The difficulty is how to make people realise that without seeming to tell people they were tricked (that is, they were idiots) or that they were bad people for voting in scum. Because get that wrong and you can reenforce their vote.
If you analyse the clever ones like Blair in his pomp, they invariably appear to comprehend why in a free liberal society with a range of liberal centrist parties people may vote, or have voted, for different ones, but:
they never criticise the voters
and
the make a credible better offer at the retail level, while having abstract uplifting principles as well.
The difference was that Blair was positive. Despite spending every day bashing the government, he had ideas, and a positive vision.
Cameron was also positive, as was Johnson.
Starmer and his Labour Party are still being negative, offering brickbats rather than solutions, or even a hint of vision beyond empty platitudes - and the first day of their conference is now being dominated by sloppy use of language from the deputy leader.
Most of Blair's message in 1997 was bland and vacuous - effectively Thatcherism with a more human face.
Thatcherism is very unpopular now in both parties:
Single Market bad Working class payrises good State intervention in industry good Money printing good Inflation good
She must be spinning in her grave.
Much of the working class did very well under Thatcherism including a huge increase in their level of home ownership of which being allowed to buy their council house was only a part.
See Harry Enfield's 'Loadsamoney' as a stereotyped example.
Sure. Some did very well, but undeniably both major parties have abandoned Thatcherism now.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
There was a short conversation about it on here a few weeks back.
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
They really are clueless.
It does seem odd on the face of it that private schools have charitable status.
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
About half of private schools are charities, IIRC.
The first issue is that, in this country, we use "charitable" status for organisations that are really what the Americans call a "non-profit".
The second, which comes up every time this is brought up... is the issue of charitable status in general.
Most private schools engage in some charitable work. For example, it is quite common to lend playing fields and other facilities to neighbouring state schools. One school I know of gives 25% of the pupils full scholarships (means tested).
A number of charities do rather less than this on their subject charitable cause - hence the reticence in the charitable sector about this. If the private schools were shoved out, quite a few charities would face the chop under the same rules...
I wouldn't blame Brexit. There HGV driver shortages everywhere. And HGV drivers very much fall I to the category of jobs which ought to be paid more but where wages have been artificially depressed by the availability of the infinite Labour pool. Poaching drivers from abroad can't be the answer, either for us or for for the countries whose skilled la our we are poaching. But it's clearly ministers' fault (and their counterparts in other countries, for shortages elsewhere.) You shut the country down for a year, things like this happen. Another illustrationof the cost of lockdown that we will be paying for some time. Anyway, on happier matters, I'm on a bike ride today in the Yorkshire Dale's. Passing through settle earlier, I heard a sound I hadn't heard for a year and a half: the sound of church bells. A whole ring, too, not some socially-distanced every-other-bell. Brought a tear of happiness to my eye. We are winning.
I wouldn't blame Brexit. There HGV driver shortages everywhere. And HGV drivers very much fall I to the category of jobs which ought to be paid more but where wages have been artificially depressed by the availability of the infinite Labour pool. Poaching drivers from abroad can't be the answer, either for us or for for the countries whose skilled la our we are poaching. But it's clearly ministers' fault (and their counterparts in other countries, for shortages elsewhere.) You shut the country down for a year, things like this happen. Another illustrationof the cost of lockdown that we will be paying for some time. Anyway, on happier matters, I'm on a bike ride today in the Yorkshire Dale's. Passing through settle earlier, I heard a sound I hadn't heard for a year and a half: the sound of church bells. A whole ring, too, not some socially-distanced every-other-bell. Brought a tear of happiness to my eye. We are winning.
... while gazing back towards Settle over Ribblesdale, reflecting on this, I heard a sound I have not heard ever: a horse farming, joyously, tail raised. Cacophonous, wet and lengthy. Remarkable.Brought me back down to earth a bit. My routs, should you be interested - and I can't for a moment imagine that you are - is Airton-Settle-Stainforth-Litton-Grassington-Airton. Honestly wondered whether a coronary was imminent coming over from Stainforth to Littondale. Now in Grassington awaiting lunch. Hence pointless chattiness.
Well done Angela, "Tory scum" led R4 lunchtime news. And any belief that she was only referring to the government and not supporters is for the birds. Labour telling voters they've got it wrong again, how did that turn out last time?
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
They really are clueless.
It does seem odd on the face of it that private schools have charitable status.
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
I don't think it's that odd. They are educating children at zero profit, and at zero cost to the state.
Blimey - NEC’s Johanna Baxter tells the Labour First rally that the party’s legal fees are now £2m a year... which she says is key reason behind staffing cuts
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Obviously we don't know the specifics of the case you quoted, but isn't it likely he's paying child support (hence the constant complaints about not having enough money)? We also don't know what discussions went on between the two (or three) regarding the arrangements. I don't think there is evidence to claim he abandoned the child.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
the obvious conclusion is he'd rather give his money to his lawyers than his offspring
I can't be the only one who's thoroughly bored by "Trans".
You aren't. But clearly it is a source of endless fascination for many. On the day of a German election and fuel crisis.
I find it boring, and bewildering, and impenetrable - however, as a politics geek (like most of us) its unexpected capacity to wreak huge damage on Labour and the Left is fascinating. And most entertaining
At the moment it is mainly Twitter feminists abandoning the party. But they are quite influential
If Labour earned the contempt of someone like Caitlin Moran - or JKRowling - that would not be good for them, on a much wider scale
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Surely it depends on the extent to which he is involved in their lives. He betrayed his wives and fractured his families, and I think that is legitimate to report, but I have no idea if his 'walking out' means he has no longer acted as a father to his other children. If he's sought to cover up his paternity for one that might be a case of abandonment, but I don't think without proof one can definitively state he has abandoned the children of a previous marriage. Was he a poor or lackluster father? Maybe. Is that abandonment? I'd be wary of claiming that without proof.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
the obvious conclusion is he'd rather give his money to his lawyers than his offspring
He wasn't involved in this case according to the article. This was between the mother and the newspapers.
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
They really are clueless.
It does seem odd on the face of it that private schools have charitable status.
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
Yes. Private schools charity status seems bizarre. AIUI they have to show public benefit. But it is up to the schools themselves to define exactly how. The easiest way being bung a few bursaries. Their must be some way of opening up facilities more widely, teacher exchanges, etc., etc. Some private schools are great at being an integral part of their community already. Others aren't. Best practice by all would be a huge step forward.
NEW: Anneliese Dodds responds to James Gray MP saying a bomb should be planted in her office:
‘I think it’s important that he apologises.
‘I would say that the broader issue of safety for everyone in politics is very important.
Dodds contd: “I think all parliamentarians should be committed to ensuring that everyone can be involved in public life without any fear of intimidation or violence.”
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
That probably just shows a base level Tory tribal vote, picking the most favourable option whether they believe it or not.
Here's a stab at how it could be Labour's fault.
This petrol panic is about the market turmoil from a shortage of HGV drivers.
Labour let the FOM influx of Eastern European in on their watch, knowing what would happen to pay rates of lower paid workers. This meant that in many areas, the normal laws of supply and demand got misaligned from their natural levels, as supply became pretty much infinitely elastic. This held down wage levels, resulting in fewer UK nationals training to become HGV drivers.
There has now been a massive market correction because lots of the cheap labour has vanished over the last year or so - partly Brexit, mainly Covid (it's much less fun being cheap labour in the UK if you can't Easyjet your way home to see family for a weekend at £20 a go every month or two).
Had Labour not let that influx of cheap labor come in the first place, we wouldn't suddenly be in a roller-coaster of a mega correction now, as the market would have operated normally over the last 15 years or so - so wages would have risen gradually, more drivers would have been trained, lorry operators would have put more effort into maximising productivity etc...
I don't think it's just Labour's fault, but it's not unreasonable to assign them a share of the blame.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps you have greater knowledge of his private life than the rest of us. But as I understand it he was kicked out of one family - by Marina Walker, his then wife. The other I don’t know
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
NEW: Anneliese Dodds responds to James Gray MP saying a bomb should be planted in her office:
‘I think it’s important that he apologises.
‘I would say that the broader issue of safety for everyone in politics is very important.
Dodds contd: “I think all parliamentarians should be committed to ensuring that everyone can be involved in public life without any fear of intimidation or violence.”
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Why should men have to put up with those things if women don't? Not very equal.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Surely it depends on the extent to which he is involved in their lives. He betrayed his wives and fractured his families, and I think that is legitimate to report, but I have no idea if his 'walking out' means he has no longer acted as a father to his other children. If he's sought to cover up his paternity for one that might be a case of abandonment, but I don't think without proof one can definitively state he has abandoned the children of a previous marriage. Was he a poor or lackluster father? Maybe. Is that abandonment? I'd be wary of claiming that without proof.
I thought I read in the papers a while back that some of his kids weren't speaking to him? Which isn't quite the same as abandonment. Hopefully they have patched things up, it's sad to see families with these kind of divisions. He certainly seems to put more energy into creating children than hanging around for the difficult bits. Perhaps it's the act of creating children that he enjoys the best?
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Without getting crudeWouldn't you need a particularly strong bladder to do the job as a woman ?
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Also getting prosecuted if some illegal migrant manages to sneak in your lorry at Calais. Not an enviable job
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Surely it depends on the extent to which he is involved in their lives. He betrayed his wives and fractured his families, and I think that is legitimate to report, but I have no idea if his 'walking out' means he has no longer acted as a father to his other children. If he's sought to cover up his paternity for one that might be a case of abandonment, but I don't think without proof one can definitively state he has abandoned the children of a previous marriage. Was he a poor or lackluster father? Maybe. Is that abandonment? I'd be wary of claiming that without proof.
I thought I read in the papers a while back that some of his kids weren't speaking to him? Which isn't quite the same as abandonment. Hopefully they have patched things up, it's sad to see families with these kind of divisions. He certainly seems to put more energy into creating children than hanging around for the difficult bits. Perhaps it's the act of creating children that he enjoys the best?
Kids not speaking to parents can be their choice not the other way around as I know from my own family, but from everything we know of his personal life he certainly provides sufficient reason for a split, sadly, to have been created by dint of his own actions.
I guess he's fortunate they aren't publicly slagging him off.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Why should men have to put up with those things if women don't? Not very equal.
Well they shouldn't. It's a large part of the reason for the lack of drivers. Probably more so than pay.
Chinese authorities have seized and sold tens of millions of dollars in assets owned by jailed Uyghur business owners—from home appliances to 30-story buildings—much of it on Alibaba's Taobao platform. https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1441417388751134726
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Also getting prosecuted if some illegal migrant manages to sneak in your lorry at Calais. Not an enviable job
Well indeed. Reading about it, the only wonder is that there are so many HGV drivers.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
What social pressure.??? From what I can see the state is behind single mothers with accomodation, benefits and so on and so forth. Help might have been worse 40 yrs ago but since the millenium, i wouod have thought it ok. As to abortion, that is a matter for the mother, i would have thought.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Surely it depends on the extent to which he is involved in their lives. He betrayed his wives and fractured his families, and I think that is legitimate to report, but I have no idea if his 'walking out' means he has no longer acted as a father to his other children. If he's sought to cover up his paternity for one that might be a case of abandonment, but I don't think without proof one can definitively state he has abandoned the children of a previous marriage. Was he a poor or lackluster father? Maybe. Is that abandonment? I'd be wary of claiming that without proof.
I thought I read in the papers a while back that some of his kids weren't speaking to him? Which isn't quite the same as abandonment. Hopefully they have patched things up, it's sad to see families with these kind of divisions. He certainly seems to put more energy into creating children than hanging around for the difficult bits. Perhaps it's the act of creating children that he enjoys the best?
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
He could have just told the truth and said yes and then talked about gender / trans etc but to avoid answering the truth so that some nutjobs can try to accuse him of transphobia shows how crap he is.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Well, quite. That's my point about awful working conditions, and broader attitudes to women too.
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
Looks like the solr mechanism is still working. I wonder if ofgem needed to bribe octopus?
ofgem @ofgem · 29m Avro Energy customer? Octopus Energy will be your new supplier from 26 September.
Your new contract can last as long as you want. You won’t be charged exit fees if you then choose to switch.
AVRO energy is quite some business. Run by a 27 year old ex footballer in Leics, and with an interesting line in moving money between his family businesses.
Been told that petrol was available at Corley services on the M6 about an hour ago.
Just spoke to a delivery guy who has just driven a big 48hr loop around the middle of England. He said the motorway service stations he’d stopped at appeared to have both fuel and minimal queues.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
This debate is so detached from reality most people don’t even understand the terms. Which is why it is such a dangerous rabbit-hole for the Left. At least in your last paragraph you show some self-awareness of this
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
The terminology can get even more abstruse than that. Blending two of today's themes, trans people who don't agree with self-id get called 'truscum' and accused of being transphobic.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Well, quite. That's my point about awful working conditions, and broader attitudes to women too.
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
99% of bin collectors are men. We don't often hear about trying to make it more gender equal.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
What social pressure.??? From what I can see the state is behind single mothers with accomodation, benefits and so on and so forth. Help might have been worse 40 yrs ago but since the millenium, i wouod have thought it ok. As to abortion, that is a matter for the mother, i would have thought.
Utterly delusional to think that a pregnant teenager isn't under huge social pressure to have an abortion. And your last sentence misses the point, which was that if you have traditional Christian beliefs, you should be praising her not calling her scum.
I think this weekend has moved Labour further from power. And Starmer's comments on private schools will probably shore up Tory Remain support in the SE too.
They really are clueless.
It does seem odd on the face of it that private schools have charitable status.
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
Yes. Private schools charity status seems bizarre. AIUI they have to show public benefit. But it is up to the schools themselves to define exactly how. The easiest way being bung a few bursaries. Their must be some way of opening up facilities more widely, teacher exchanges, etc., etc. Some private schools are great at being an integral part of their community already. Others aren't. Best practice by all would be a huge step forward.
Better still would be stricter controls by the Charities Commission. Basically change the rules so that private schools - and other institutions - can be charities if they are shown to clearly be doing private good, with a clearly defined minimum level for that. But just being a private school should not mean automatic entitlement to charity status.
Looks like the solr mechanism is still working. I wonder if ofgem needed to bribe octopus?
ofgem @ofgem · 29m Avro Energy customer? Octopus Energy will be your new supplier from 26 September.
Your new contract can last as long as you want. You won’t be charged exit fees if you then choose to switch.
AVRO energy is quite some business. Run by a 27 year old ex footballer in Leics, and with an interesting line in moving money between his family businesses.
This is quite a striking local news story - a list of the (mostly young) people fined, in some cases thousands of pounds, for breaking the lockdown rules during the tier four period.
Aside from the question of whether it is right to name and shame like this, I am thinking that if the same picture is replicated evenly across the country there are far more people prosecuted for covid violations than I would have imagined?
Been told that petrol was available at Corley services on the M6 about an hour ago.
Just spoke to a delivery guy who has just driven a big 48hr loop around the middle of England. He said the motorway service stations he’d stopped at appeared to have both fuel and minimal queues.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
What social pressure.??? From what I can see the state is behind single mothers with accomodation, benefits and so on and so forth. Help might have been worse 40 yrs ago but since the millenium, i wouod have thought it ok. As to abortion, that is a matter for the mother, i would have thought.
Utterly delusional to think that a pregnant teenager isn't under huge social pressure to have an abortion. And your last sentence misses the point, which was that if you have traditional Christian beliefs, you should be praising her not calling her scum.
justin's problem is painfully, painfully easy to deduce from his abhorrence of female sexuality in all its manifestations, and the fact that he has never married. The true and very pitiful victim of his uberChristian bigotry, is Justin.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps you have greater knowledge of his private life than the rest of us. But as I understand it he was kicked out of one family - by Marina Walker, his then wife. The other I don’t know
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
It’s true that some of his children no longer speak to him. While that is their decision, it hardly reflects well on him.
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
What social pressure.??? From what I can see the state is behind single mothers with accomodation, benefits and so on and so forth. Help might have been worse 40 yrs ago but since the millenium, i wouod have thought it ok. As to abortion, that is a matter for the mother, i would have thought.
Utterly delusional to think that a pregnant teenager isn't under huge social pressure to have an abortion. And your last sentence misses the point, which was that if you have traditional Christian beliefs, you should be praising her not calling her scum.
I dont think I called her scum. I said she was as thick as two short planks.. which, if rude, is on the money.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
Excellent comment.
It's a very depressing topic. For most people, including well educated people of left and right, it begins and ends with "of course biological sex matters, what idiots trying to stop us talking that way". Such idiots do exist, of course, but you really don't need to go deep into the issue to understand that:
(a) Even biological sex is non-binary.
(b) Transgender women are much more likely to be victims of violence and other abuse than cisgender ("biological") women. Much more likely even than cisgender men. This is largely due to the prejudice they face. We can respect the fear that some cisgender women have of trans-women, certainly their right to voice those fears, but it *is* transphobic to allow such fears to dominate the discussion as they currently do.
(c) Being "gender-sceptic" is an intellectually valid position, of course. Some would say it's common sense. Unfortunately, whenever I've read any article of any length by an actual self-proclaimed gender-sceptic, it has become clear that they despise the trans community, and deserve to be labelled as a transphobe.
(d) A small minority of members of the trans-community show the same disgusting aggressiveness towards people they disagree with that we see on a variety of other issues (sexuality, race and cultural appropriation, sexism). On the other issues, people get away with their aggressiveness become they've already won the argument in the court of public opinion. Obviously, such aggressiveness should be condemned, but it should not be used against the trans community as a whole.
Hard to believe the amount of useless politicians who are unable to answer such a basic question, scared they will be attacked by the nutjobs who are trying to argue that biology i snot real and their F***ed up ideas are.
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
Opening up to unlimited immigration
> removed incentives for companies to train more drivers or pay higher wages
> structural shortage of UK based drivers
> Brexit revealed the underlying problem rather than causing it
Voila!
(Please note this is an intellectual exercise rather than what I actually think…)
Burnham is fine because he has little media scrutiny. Different matter if he really was under the spotlight instead of just the local rags.
He was pretty awful is his two prior leadership bids but to be fair he seems a different kettle of fish now. I think he could be very effective as leader in making the party electable but 1) he is not an MP and 2) he has gentleman's parts.
Who says he can't be a woman for the purposes of the election?
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
This debate is so detached from reality most people don’t even understand the terms. Which is why it is such a dangerous rabbit-hole for the Left. At least in your last paragraph you show some self-awareness of this
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
The topic pulls people in for prurient reasons and more respectable reasons - there's a genuine issue of prejudice and an intriguing mix of ideas and agendas and beliefs. I agree it's an issue with potential to hurt the left and help the right. Same goes for lots of issues. Brexit? Immigration? It's electorally dangerous for Labour to talk about these things. But we have to, otherwise we risk becoming vote grubbers and little else.
I could answer your questions on transmen but I won't because I sense you're only asking for effect, trying to make out you're floating above the detail on an issue that isn't worth your time, whereas I'm lost down the rabbit hole. Fact is, you know transpeople, which I don't, and you've done lots of reading on it, more than I have. You know the ins and outs of this, what transition means, legally and medically, how it's done, what the potential treatments are, you're all over it, and you ARE interested, it's one of the hottest culture war battlegrounds therefore you're VERY interested in it, same as me, and quite right we are too. Because it's interesting.
Eg one thing I find striking is how it's all blown up quite quickly. Mrs May's proposed reforms had broad support cross-party and from the medical profession. Something similar has been implemented in several countries without mishap or clamour for reversal. There was plenty of debate, since it's a nuanced and complex area, but it wasn't a massive deal. Yet a similar (to Mrs May's) position now is painted as a new cultural revolution that will cancel biological science and lead to hordes of men becoming women purely in order to get into toilets, changing rooms, spas, prisons, refuges etc and commit sexual crimes there. Quite bizarre. The whole debate is a fascinating phenomenon for anyone who is interested in modern politics as amped by the internet, it just is.
Except where it belongs, which is selfish twats filling cars to the brim when there was no need at all, given they hardly ever leave the drive.....
Agree but it seems to be human nature. I'm struggling to understand how 33% manage to blame the last Labour Govt. Much as I can see many might want to, it is an stretch.
That probably just shows a base level Tory tribal vote, picking the most favourable option whether they believe it or not.
Here's a stab at how it could be Labour's fault.
This petrol panic is about the market turmoil from a shortage of HGV drivers.
Labour let the FOM influx of Eastern European in on their watch, knowing what would happen to pay rates of lower paid workers. This meant that in many areas, the normal laws of supply and demand got misaligned from their natural levels, as supply became pretty much infinitely elastic. This held down wage levels, resulting in fewer UK nationals training to become HGV drivers.
There has now been a massive market correction because lots of the cheap labour has vanished over the last year or so - partly Brexit, mainly Covid (it's much less fun being cheap labour in the UK if you can't Easyjet your way home to see family for a weekend at £20 a go every month or two).
Had Labour not let that influx of cheap labor come in the first place, we wouldn't suddenly be in a roller-coaster of a mega correction now, as the market would have operated normally over the last 15 years or so - so wages would have risen gradually, more drivers would have been trained, lorry operators would have put more effort into maximising productivity etc...
I don't think it's just Labour's fault, but it's not unreasonable to assign them a share of the blame.
Wow!
Well I am tempted to blame Aneurin Bevan for the woes of the NHS for the last decade, oh, and Ted Heath for Brexit.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps you have greater knowledge of his private life than the rest of us. But as I understand it he was kicked out of one family - by Marina Walker, his then wife. The other I don’t know
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
It’s true that some of his children no longer speak to him. While that is their decision, it hardly reflects well on him.
In my extended family, right now, there is one child resolutely not talking to one of his parents. And I can say that, for sure, the problem is with the child
Families are complex, intricate things, very hard to entirely understand from outside. Unless he has incredible insider info, Foxy’s remark was glib and unjustified
MISCALCULATION BY GOP—As an epidemiologist, I think Republicans might be killing off their voter base faster than they think. The #COVID19 death rate since June 30 in counties where Trump got >90% of the vote are 9.5x higher than where he got <10%—pretty strong. HT @charles_gabahttps://t.co/e5IAE6qTv5
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'.
I've defended your right to express opposition to sex outside marriage before, but I'm afraid this comment does make you a bigot.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
What social pressure.??? From what I can see the state is behind single mothers with accomodation, benefits and so on and so forth. Help might have been worse 40 yrs ago but since the millenium, i wouod have thought it ok. As to abortion, that is a matter for the mother, i would have thought.
Utterly delusional to think that a pregnant teenager isn't under huge social pressure to have an abortion. And your last sentence misses the point, which was that if you have traditional Christian beliefs, you should be praising her not calling her scum.
I would not phrase it quite the way he has but Justin is right. Christians can have compassion for those who have had difficult upbringings but nonetheless the Christian message is clear, sex is best done within marriage, as is the raising of children
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Well, quite. That's my point about awful working conditions, and broader attitudes to women too.
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
99% of bin collectors are men. We don't often hear about trying to make it more gender equal.
Cushy number nowadays as well, I bet women would do it a lot better than some of the chancers doing it.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps you have greater knowledge of his private life than the rest of us. But as I understand it he was kicked out of one family - by Marina Walker, his then wife. The other I don’t know
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
It’s true that some of his children no longer speak to him. While that is their decision, it hardly reflects well on him.
In my extended family, right now, there is one child resolutely not talking to one of his parents. And I can say that, for sure, the problem is with the child
Families are complex, intricate things, very hard to entirely understand from outside. Unless he has incredible insider info, Foxy’s remark was glib and unjustified
You don’t need much insider info to deduce that he’s a selfish self-centred bastard who only cares about himself.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Perhaps you have greater knowledge of his private life than the rest of us. But as I understand it he was kicked out of one family - by Marina Walker, his then wife. The other I don’t know
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
It’s true that some of his children no longer speak to him. While that is their decision, it hardly reflects well on him.
In my extended family, right now, there is one child resolutely not talking to one of his parents. And I can say that, for sure, the problem is with the child
Families are complex, intricate things, very hard to entirely understand from outside. Unless he has incredible insider info, Foxy’s remark was glib and unjustified
Sure, there are many reasons families breakdown.
In Johnsons case it was serial, unrepentant adultery, and yes I do have a degree of insider knowledge.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Well, quite. That's my point about awful working conditions, and broader attitudes to women too.
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
99% of bin collectors are men. We don't often hear about trying to make it more gender equal.
Cushy number nowadays as well, I bet women would do it a lot better than some of the chancers doing it.
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Without getting crudeWouldn't you need a particularly strong bladder to do the job as a woman ?
But my point is that it's the job, not the women.
In almost any other job employers would make far better efforts to be inclusive.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Obviously we don't know the specifics of the case you quoted, but isn't it likely he's paying child support (hence the constant complaints about not having enough money)? We also don't know what discussions went on between the two (or three) regarding the arrangements. I don't think there is evidence to claim he abandoned the child.
Typical Tory, you think him handing over some cash is all that matters.
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
This debate is so detached from reality most people don’t even understand the terms. Which is why it is such a dangerous rabbit-hole for the Left. At least in your last paragraph you show some self-awareness of this
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
The topic pulls people in for prurient reasons and more respectable reasons - there's a genuine issue of prejudice and an intriguing mix of ideas and agendas and beliefs. I agree it's an issue with potential to hurt the left and help the right. Same goes for lots of issues. Brexit? Immigration? It's electorally dangerous for Labour to talk about these things. But we have to, otherwise we risk becoming vote grubbers and little else.
I could answer your questions on transmen but I won't because I sense you're only asking for effect, trying to make out you're floating above the detail on an issue that isn't worth your time, whereas I'm lost down the rabbit hole. Fact is, you know transpeople, which I don't, and you've done lots of reading on it, more than I have. You know the ins and outs of this, what transition means, legally and medically, how it's done, what the potential treatments are, you're all over it, and you ARE interested, it's one of the hottest culture war battlegrounds therefore you're VERY interested in it, same as me, and quite right we are too. Because it's interesting.
Eg one thing I find striking is how it's all blown up quite quickly. Mrs May's proposed reforms had broad support cross-party and from the medical profession. Something similar has been implemented in several countries without mishap or clamour for reversal. There was plenty of debate, since it's a nuanced and complex area, but it wasn't a massive deal. Yet a similar (to Mrs May's) position now is painted as a new cultural revolution that will cancel biological science and lead to hordes of men becoming women purely in order to get into toilets, changing rooms, spas, prisons, refuges etc and commit sexual crimes there. Quite bizarre. The whole debate is a fascinating phenomenon for anyone who is interested in modern politics as amped by the internet, it just is.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I DO find the actual argument boring, overly complex, and off-puttingly aggressive, despite having an actual transitioned female old friend (once male).
And my question was sincere: what are ‘transmen’? I suspect you don’t have a clear answer. Nor do I. Hence the question
My only REAL sustained interest in this (shared by you it seems) is as a culture war issue, and the way it can be used to annihilate the Left, depriving them of millions of female votes. That’s fascinating. Partly because it’s always fun when the Left implodes but also because this issue may signal the first backwards swing of the pendulum, away from ID politics and ultra-Wokeness and back to sanity
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Obviously we don't know the specifics of the case you quoted, but isn't it likely he's paying child support (hence the constant complaints about not having enough money)? We also don't know what discussions went on between the two (or three) regarding the arrangements. I don't think there is evidence to claim he abandoned the child.
Typical Tory, you think him handing over some cash is all that matters.
Seems appropriate in this situation, given the child was raised by its mother and her husband?
Apols all, missed PT with this: Marr's "cervix = transphobia" question to Starmer.
It's a stupid question because it depends on how and why and where it is said. Eg stating when asked, or in a debate about gender identity, your opinion that only women have a cervix, as colour to your overall view that 'biology is destiny' on these matters, is not per se transphobic, whereas ramming that view at transmen on a personal level could well be, since it's telling them that despite everything they've gone through, and whatever the law says, they are still women, they're always a woman to you; it's denying their identity, an identity they and the law are probably more qualified to opine on than you are.
But either way it depends on tone and context. In this respect transphobia is no different to racism, misogyny, or any other prejudice. Hard to define, in fact rather a pointless distraction to define, because it's more a case of you know it when you see it. That said, I will have a bash at defining it, why not.
So, it describes those who mock the idea that “born the wrong sex” is for some people a distressing identity crisis for which changing gender is the best remedy, who scaremonger that transwomen are likely to be perverts, who insist on misgendering to denigrate, to hurt, or to prove, relentlessly, each and every day just in case anybody had forgotten, some sort of muscular purity of thought or language. The word is bandied around very loosely and counter-productively, nevertheless there are plenty of genuine transphobes active on the anti side of the trans debate, no question, and that includes some of the great posters on this great site.
And now THAT said, a confession: I do if I'm honest find it a bit bizarre, and possibly not the healthiest thing, how an aging ex-City bloke who knows no transpeople, whose politics apart from on private schools are mushy soft left, whose most exotic identity strand is Yorkshireman, has found himself with clear views on this topic, but there you go. Perils of the internet. I find it interesting, not at all trivial, and I hope Labour retain their commitment to the reform of the GRA.
This debate is so detached from reality most people don’t even understand the terms. Which is why it is such a dangerous rabbit-hole for the Left. At least in your last paragraph you show some self-awareness of this
For instance, me. I’m an educated Londoner with an unusual interest in politics. I chat endlessly on PB and I read a lot of sociology and the like. I’m also fascinated by language and its usage. But even I don’t know what the hell you’re on about
Take just one word you use. ‘Transmen’. Who are they? What are they? Are they people born male who have transitioned to female via surgery? Are they people born male who are about to transition, or considering it, or halfway through? Or are they women who’ve transitioned to being men? Or want to? Or what?
I have absolutely no clue. I’m not being facetious. I’ve no idea.
So if I’m reading all of this with total bewilderment, and a sense of frustration and weariness, god knows what the average punter is thinking. But it won’t be good for the Left. It’s definitely not engaging
The topic pulls people in for prurient reasons and more respectable reasons - there's a genuine issue of prejudice and an intriguing mix of ideas and agendas and beliefs. I agree it's an issue with potential to hurt the left and help the right. Same goes for lots of issues. Brexit? Immigration? It's electorally dangerous for Labour to talk about these things. But we have to, otherwise we risk becoming vote grubbers and little else.
I could answer your questions on transmen but I won't because I sense you're only asking for effect, trying to make out you're floating above the detail on an issue that isn't worth your time, whereas I'm lost down the rabbit hole. Fact is, you know transpeople, which I don't, and you've done lots of reading on it, more than I have. You know the ins and outs of this, what transition means, legally and medically, how it's done, what the potential treatments are, you're all over it, and you ARE interested, it's one of the hottest culture war battlegrounds therefore you're VERY interested in it, same as me, and quite right we are too. Because it's interesting.
Eg one thing I find striking is how it's all blown up quite quickly. Mrs May's proposed reforms had broad support cross-party and from the medical profession. Something similar has been implemented in several countries without mishap or clamour for reversal. There was plenty of debate, since it's a nuanced and complex area, but it wasn't a massive deal. Yet a similar (to Mrs May's) position now is painted as a new cultural revolution that will cancel biological science and lead to hordes of men becoming women purely in order to get into toilets, changing rooms, spas, prisons, refuges etc and commit sexual crimes there. Quite bizarre. The whole debate is a fascinating phenomenon for anyone who is interested in modern politics as amped by the internet, it just is.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
I DO find the actual argument boring, overly complex, and off-puttingly aggressive, despite having an actual transitioned female old friend (once male).
And my question was sincere: what are ‘transmen’? I suspect you don’t have a clear answer. Nor do I. Hence the question
My only REAL sustained interest in this (shared by you it seems) is as a culture war issue, and the way it can be used to annihilate the Left, depriving them of millions of female votes. That’s fascinating. Partly because it’s always fun when the Left implodes but also because this issue may signal the first backwards swing of the pendulum, away from ID politics and ultra-Wokeness and back to sanity
There's that, and I think a lot of men and women object to being rebadged as "cis" in its pursuit too.
Enough. I'd rather discuss my favourite correction fluid.
That says nothing about abandonment. You explicitly said he abandoned his children. I'd have thought you would actually have evidence before making such a claim.
He has walked out on 2 previous families, as well as this affair. That is abandonment in my view. The children were not adults.
Obviously we don't know the specifics of the case you quoted, but isn't it likely he's paying child support (hence the constant complaints about not having enough money)? We also don't know what discussions went on between the two (or three) regarding the arrangements. I don't think there is evidence to claim he abandoned the child.
Typical Tory, you think him handing over some cash is all that matters.
Seems appropriate in this situation, given the child was raised by its mother and her husband?
Still means he has abandoned bringing up his children from several families etc. Not a great thing he should be proud of at all. Fact you think it is all hunky dory as long as he just splashes the cash is odd.
"The most striking part of the interview was Starmer’s comments with respect to his deputy Angela Rayner. Overnight, Rayner has caused controversy after using a speech at a conference reception to refer to the Tories as ‘a bunch of scum’ and ‘homophobic, racist, misogynistic’. Asked whether Rayner ought to apologise, Starmer repeatedly refused to say. Instead, he said: ‘Angela and I take different approaches. That is not language that I would use.’ As for whether she ought to apologise, he said: ‘That's a matter for Angela but I would not have used those words.’"
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
Perhaps having to shit and piss in your cab. And kip alone in a dark layby with a valuable cargo may have summat to do with that?
Well, quite. That's my point about awful working conditions, and broader attitudes to women too.
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
99% of bin collectors are men. We don't often hear about trying to make it more gender equal.
Cushy number nowadays as well, I bet women would do it a lot better than some of the chancers doing it.
Your bin men are chancers?
Lazy gits, spill it all over the street , half empty buckets.
Comments
See Harry Enfield's 'Loadsamoney' as a stereotyped example.
Stalin's children are a matter of history not of current politics. They are also now dead. It is reasonable that we know stuff about them. Johnson's children are alive today, are still minors and should not be the subject of any form of journalistic or political debate. If clear evidence emerges of actual abuse or abandonment then I would agree that is perhaps a case for genuine public interest. Otherwise his private life and particularly that of his kids should remain just that - private.
Anyway, on happier matters, I'm on a bike ride today in the Yorkshire Dale's. Passing through settle earlier, I heard a sound I hadn't heard for a year and a half: the sound of church bells. A whole ring, too, not some socially-distanced every-other-bell. Brought a tear of happiness to my eye. We are winning.
Do wonder what the upshot will be if that occurs though. Can't see the SPD being keen yet again.
PS In any case they change annually. Can't have that in the HoL, might give people the wrong ideas ...
‘That’s what we want to hear, Dodds confirming support for self id and that trans rights are human rights - now we need the action to back it up, Starmer must remove the whip from transphobes like Duffield.’
‘So sorry to disappoint you Michael - you're clearly not a fan of women's rights. But I am not about to have the whip removed for defending them.’
https://twitter.com/rosieduffield1/status/1441885596931088384?s=21
Labour - Labour! - have got themselves into the extraordinary position of appearing anti-women, and anti-feminist
However, removing it would have two effects that would run counter to Starmer's stated intention: some private schools would close resulting in more pressures on state schools and private school fees would rise pricing some parents out of the market which would also result in more pressures on state schools.
Starmer would be better to frame his policy in terms of principle rather that beneficial effects on the poor I think.
I'm not religious but I was raised religious, and knew many good compassionate people who thought sex outside marriage was wrong. Just about every one of them would have been full of praise for Angela Rayner for keeping her baby in the face of enermous social pressure. You seem to have retained the Christian dogma but lost the Christian compassion.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58401238.amp
Perhaps with some greater flexibility and pay and condition reform there's a far larger pool of potential recruits there?
Or could it be that they're only interested in the board and director jobs that they themselves are after and are camouflaging naked self-interest in a cloak of moral self-righteousness?
The first issue is that, in this country, we use "charitable" status for organisations that are really what the Americans call a "non-profit".
The second, which comes up every time this is brought up... is the issue of charitable status in general.
Most private schools engage in some charitable work. For example, it is quite common to lend playing fields and other facilities to neighbouring state schools. One school I know of gives 25% of the pupils full scholarships (means tested).
A number of charities do rather less than this on their subject charitable cause - hence the reticence in the charitable sector about this. If the private schools were shoved out, quite a few charities would face the chop under the same rules...
My routs, should you be interested - and I can't for a moment imagine that you are - is Airton-Settle-Stainforth-Litton-Grassington-Airton. Honestly wondered whether a coronary was imminent coming over from Stainforth to Littondale. Now in Grassington awaiting lunch. Hence pointless chattiness.
But clearly it is a source of endless fascination for many.
On the day of a German election and fuel crisis.
That's charitable in my book.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1442100646023421953?s=20
At the moment it is mainly Twitter feminists abandoning the party. But they are quite influential
If Labour earned the contempt of someone like Caitlin Moran - or JKRowling - that would not be good for them, on a much wider scale
AIUI they have to show public benefit. But it is up to the schools themselves to define exactly how.
The easiest way being bung a few bursaries.
Their must be some way of opening up facilities more widely, teacher exchanges, etc., etc.
Some private schools are great at being an integral part of their community already.
Others aren't.
Best practice by all would be a huge step forward.
‘I think it’s important that he apologises.
‘I would say that the broader issue of safety for everyone in politics is very important.
Dodds contd:
“I think all parliamentarians should be committed to ensuring that everyone can be involved in public life without any fear of intimidation or violence.”
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1442106327384403968
This petrol panic is about the market turmoil from a shortage of HGV drivers.
Labour let the FOM influx of Eastern European in on their watch, knowing what would happen to pay rates of lower paid workers.
This meant that in many areas, the normal laws of supply and demand got misaligned from their natural levels, as supply became pretty much infinitely elastic.
This held down wage levels, resulting in fewer UK nationals training to become HGV drivers.
There has now been a massive market correction because lots of the cheap labour has vanished over the last year or so - partly Brexit, mainly Covid (it's much less fun being cheap labour in the UK if you can't Easyjet your way home to see family for a weekend at £20 a go every month or two).
Had Labour not let that influx of cheap labor come in the first place, we wouldn't suddenly be in a roller-coaster of a mega correction now, as the market would have operated normally over the last 15 years or so - so wages would have risen gradually, more drivers would have been trained, lorry operators would have put more effort into maximising productivity etc...
I don't think it's just Labour's fault, but it's not unreasonable to assign them a share of the blame.
‘Abandoning two families’ is a pretty strong statement. Unless you can back it up, you should retract
ofgem
@ofgem
·
29m
Avro Energy customer? Octopus Energy will be your new supplier from 26 September.
Your new contract can last as long as you want. You won’t be charged exit fees if you then choose to switch.
I guess he's fortunate they aren't publicly slagging him off.
https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1441417388751134726
Delegates just voted to nationalise energy companies
Starmer says no
The party needs to split away from its Corbynistas
Where is todays Kinnock ?
But, I hear very little about this. I can't help but feel that some of the most vocal campaigning feminists will give up the fight once they've secured what they want in their own professions.
https://www.cityam.com/avro-energy-used-by-boss-to-pump-cash-into-family-firms/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Aside from the question of whether it is right to name and shame like this, I am thinking that if the same picture is replicated evenly across the country there are far more people prosecuted for covid violations than I would have imagined?
https://www.countypress.co.uk/news/19601019.isle-wight-residents-broke-covid-lockdown-rules/
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/26/universal-credit-cut-will-lead-to-more-uk-children-in-care-study
> removed incentives for companies to train more drivers or pay higher wages
> structural shortage of UK based drivers
> Brexit revealed the underlying problem rather than causing it
Voila!
(Please note this is an intellectual exercise rather than what I actually think…)
I am not persuaded that someone who had a child out of wedlock as teenager is well placed to label other people as 'scum'."
Scum is just northern banter, according to Angela Rayner.
I could answer your questions on transmen but I won't because I sense you're only asking for effect, trying to make out you're floating above the detail on an issue that isn't worth your time, whereas I'm lost down the rabbit hole. Fact is, you know transpeople, which I don't, and you've done lots of reading on it, more than I have. You know the ins and outs of this, what transition means, legally and medically, how it's done, what the potential treatments are, you're all over it, and you ARE interested, it's one of the hottest culture war battlegrounds therefore you're VERY interested in it, same as me, and quite right we are too. Because it's interesting.
Eg one thing I find striking is how it's all blown up quite quickly. Mrs May's proposed reforms had broad support cross-party and from the medical profession. Something similar has been implemented in several countries without mishap or clamour for reversal. There was plenty of debate, since it's a nuanced and complex area, but it wasn't a massive deal. Yet a similar (to Mrs May's) position now is painted as a new cultural revolution that will cancel biological science and lead to hordes of men becoming women purely in order to get into toilets, changing rooms, spas, prisons, refuges etc and commit sexual crimes there. Quite bizarre. The whole debate is a fascinating phenomenon for anyone who is interested in modern politics as amped by the internet, it just is.
Well I am tempted to blame Aneurin Bevan for the woes of the NHS for the last decade, oh, and Ted Heath for Brexit.
Families are complex, intricate things, very hard to entirely understand from outside. Unless he has incredible insider info, Foxy’s remark was glib and unjustified
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1442089484011687937?s=19
A pretty astonishing bar chart.
I would not phrase it quite the way he has but Justin is right. Christians can have compassion for those who have had difficult upbringings but nonetheless the Christian message is clear, sex is best done within marriage, as is the raising of children
In Johnsons case it was serial, unrepentant adultery, and yes I do have a degree of insider knowledge.
In almost any other job employers would make far better efforts to be inclusive.
I DO find the actual argument boring, overly complex, and off-puttingly aggressive, despite having an actual transitioned female old friend (once male).
And my question was sincere: what are ‘transmen’? I suspect you don’t have a clear answer. Nor do I. Hence the question
My only REAL sustained interest in this (shared by you it seems) is as a culture war issue, and the way it can be used to annihilate the Left, depriving them of millions of female votes. That’s fascinating. Partly because it’s always fun when the Left implodes but also because this issue may signal the first backwards swing of the pendulum, away from ID politics and ultra-Wokeness and back to sanity
Enough. I'd rather discuss my favourite correction fluid.
"The most striking part of the interview was Starmer’s comments with respect to his deputy Angela Rayner. Overnight, Rayner has caused controversy after using a speech at a conference reception to refer to the Tories as ‘a bunch of scum’ and ‘homophobic, racist, misogynistic’. Asked whether Rayner ought to apologise, Starmer repeatedly refused to say. Instead, he said: ‘Angela and I take different approaches. That is not language that I would use.’ As for whether she ought to apologise, he said: ‘That's a matter for Angela but I would not have used those words.’"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starmer-s-confused-appearance-on-marr