Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
It’s hard to change the Union.
But Cameron’s mistake was to think he could do it to fit into his own, self-imposed electoral timeframe.
That's a fair point, though its worth remembering that Cameron had given himself until the end of 2017 in order to hold the referendum. So negotiations could have happened for much of that time.
Instead the negotiations were blitzed and over and done with in no time, because no negotiations happened. Had Cameron played harder ball, rejected the initial proposals, said to Merkel "I will have to recommend Leave unless there's serious movement" then who knows where we'd be now?
But he didn't. He fluffed it, and it meant serious reform was never going to happen. If we'd backed Remain in 2016 that would be it, we'd never get safeguards protecting us from Eurozone QMV or anything else that mattered.
This is starting to look like a pretty credible explanation.
Interesting, though depressing, to find it becoming (really: always was part of) a swarm of various zoonoses some of which will come back and bite us in the future no doubt. Like flu, HIV, etc. etc., so why should I be surprised?
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn...
This sort of comment reminds me of the politico article shared recently, about ascribing malevolent intent to one's opponents.
Few people are in favour of abortion as a thing itself. It's just that I believe people must retain control over their bodies, and this includes women who are pregnant and don't want to be (as well as those refusing the vaccine).
Ideally no-one would become pregnant if they didn't want to be pregnant, and no-one would have cause to change their mind during a pregnancy, but sadly things do not always go according to plan, which is why we need backups and failsafes. And that includes abortion.
The thing about the debate that mystifies is that both sides should be able to agree on providing free contraception and good sex education, so that the number of unintended pregnancies is reduced. The opposition to this from some makes me suspicious of their motivations - which brings me back to that politico article.
Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
That describes my ex, yes.
Some people say the glass is half full. Some say the glass is half empty.
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
Two separate things, though. It's quite likely that the court will strike down the Texas law - which only the real psychos like Alito have any regard for - and also overturn Roe.
Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Ha. Well it’s quite simple, the road out is blocked, and the wifi is still working - so either you start walking, or you stay in the pub with beer and wifi, and have a story to tell the grandkids….
I have met people who would be screaming and whining non-stop. Probably would be demanding an RAF helicopter rescue after the first half hour.
Of course. In these situations, one just needs to accept one’s fate, and know that they have food and shelter.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
It will be interesting to see whether this is borne out by other polls, as it very much seems an outlier.
On Scottish matters, worth taking a look at this brief clip of the Scottish Labour leader in action at FMQs. Pretty impressive. Nicola looks as if she's swallowed a hornet. He could do well if he ever gets a fair wind (I know...).
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
Small orange diamondOnly vaccinated and recovered people can enter non-essential shops, cultural and leisure centres Small orange diamondUnvaccinated can only meet two people from another household Small orange diamond German Parliament to discuss a vaccine mandate - from February 2022 https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1466412928404439048?s=20
This is starting to look like a pretty credible explanation.
Interesting, though depressing, to find it becoming (really: always was part of) a swarm of various zoonoses some of which will come back and bite us in the future no doubt. Like flu, HIV, etc. etc., so why should I be surprised?
One of the downsides of transition from hunter gathering to farming was the increased chance of diseases of animals become human diseases. Of course there have been some upsides too.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
The German approach is the one we should follow.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
I don't agree with bans, people should be free to do as they please.
However they are a burden on the NHS and the NHS needs funding, so it would be reasonable to have a Covid Tax to fund the NHS just as smokers are expected to pay taxes to fund it.
A 2% increase to Income Tax, which anyone who is vaccinated is exempt from, would raise revenues to fund the NHS and not ban anyone from doing anything they please.
Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
Ha. Well it’s quite simple, the road out is blocked, and the wifi is still working - so either you start walking, or you stay in the pub with beer and wifi, and have a story to tell the grandkids….
I have met people who would be screaming and whining non-stop. Probably would be demanding an RAF helicopter rescue after the first half hour.
Of course. In these situations, one just needs to accept one’s fate, and know that they have food and shelter.
Not sure telling them to start walking across Tan Hill moors in Winter in drifting snow would solve their problems.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
You mean, it doesn't mention abortion, any more than it discusses (I presume) the merits of abolishing chattel slavery of Black people?
Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
That describes my ex, yes.
Some people say the glass is half full. Some say the glass is half empty.
I say both are missing the *real* question.
"Who's round is it?"
Apparently during the Tan Hill saga, you couldn't ask that until 3pm. The landlady had decided people starting on the ale before then in these circumstances might be sub-optimal.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
My apologies to you. Your two questions are good ones. My mistake.
No probs, cyclefree. In fact I sometimes think I'm well out of this one on PB. The opinion stats often quoted by my pal Owen Jones - that people are broadly relaxed about people changing gender - are not borne out on this site!
Tell you one thing though, for all our differences on this, it's dwarfed by shared horror at what's going on with abortion rights in the States.
Are the right in America hellbent on re-fighting the battles lost 2 generations ago? What's next do you think? Try to reactivate the Crow laws?
I suppose if they are going to go through these struggles all over again we might get some good music out of it - but really, what a bad bad development.
Sadly, not so fast. When it comes to slavery, equality before the law, segregation and goodness knows what else it is reasonably clear which side is the progressive cause.
Abortion is very different for a number of reasons. There is nothing obviously progressive about killing the unborn, and nothing obviously progressive about denying women the right to choose.
Each side assembles a formidably strong but also fatally flawed case; neither side can acknowledge the weaknesses in their own or the strength of the other side.
So both sides get angry with the other.
Though so different it has similarities with how Brexit plays out.
A woman's right to choose whether she carries the unborn child inside her to term and motherhood - subject to limits regarding late termination - has been established for a generation or more. It's absolutely fundamental to the principle of equal worth of the sexes. The attempt to overturn it is not a matter of 'on the one hand this, on the other hand that' or 'both sides have a point but are too wound up to debate it sensibly'. There are plenty of issues like that but this isn't one of them.
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
You mean, it doesn't mention abortion, any more than it discusses (I presume) the merits of abolishing chattel slavery of Black people?
I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
The UK didn't have any cards since the closer union thing was fluff and not in the voting rights.
The UK could deem anything it pleased "closer union" and it wouldn't change a damned thing, because voting reform didn't happen. The Eurozone could pass it anyway via QMV and we would have been muttering away about closer union on the sidelines utterly ignored.
Unless a veto were introduced into voting rights, you're talking tosh in thinking it meant anything. Please show me where the voting rights were amended.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
The German approach is the one we should follow.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
I don't agree with bans, people should be free to do as they please.
However they are a burden on the NHS and the NHS needs funding, so it would be reasonable to have a Covid Tax to fund the NHS just as smokers are expected to pay taxes to fund it.
A 2% increase to Income Tax, which anyone who is vaccinated is exempt from, would raise revenues to fund the NHS and not ban anyone from doing anything they please.
Absolutely. Financial penalties via the tax system are the moral, ethical and logical way forward.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
The joker in the pack was the GFA - And according to the rules of the game jokers are wild and the EU used like a tennis ace.
I think things will gradually improve now we're out and the EU starts to realise that it's actually they who are the baddies.
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
You mean, it doesn't mention abortion, any more than it discusses (I presume) the merits of abolishing chattel slavery of Black people?
I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
You mean, it doesn't mention abortion, any more than it discusses (I presume) the merits of abolishing chattel slavery of Black people?
I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
Ceretainly didn't extend the notion of liberty and equality to these people.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The link is this: to get a GRC now you have to take active steps to live as the sex you want to be. So a transwoman would have to live, act, dress like a woman. If she uses the ladies' loo she will appear to be a woman and will be most unlikely to want to attack other women.
If those requirements are removed as the self-ID crowd want, there is no requirement at all - no medical diagnosis, no need to dress like a woman or act like one at all. Nothing. So a male predator can simply walk into a woman's space, cannot be challenged or ejected because he will say that he is / identifies as a woman and is free to attack or expose himself or masturbate in front of women or be voyeuristic etc. Self-ID provides a charter for sexual predators to get into womens spaces more easily, without the risk of challenge. And if convicted they can then demand to be put into a woman's prison where they have a captive female population to hand.
Self-ID removes existing safeguards for women and girls and provides easier opportunities for predators.
I get that you want it in order to make things easier for genuine trans people. But it will become a predators charter. Any removal of safeguards or taking people on trust because of who they are or what they say they are inevitably results in this. Evidence: priests, sports coaches, any of the very many groups and organisations listed in the IICSA inquiry.
If we really want to make things easier for those with dysphoria we should be making the resources available so that they don't have to wait years even to get an appointment to see a specialist. Abandoning safeguards is not the right response to unconscionable delays.
Someone here persuaded me to subscribe to the (free) American Morning Dispatch emails, which come from a conservative think-tank. They often illustrate the very best of conservatism, in my view - an emphasis on family, mutual respect, religion and tolerance - and are sometimes beautifully written. They aren't my natural habitat but they're often a pleasure to read and think about. The current one is about the pleasures of solitude:
That’s an awesome story, not that many people are going to be too worried about being stuck in a pub for three days!
There are a surprising number of people out there, whose response to circumstance beyond their control is escalating anger. As opposed to constructive adaption.
That describes my ex, yes.
Some people say the glass is half full. Some say the glass is half empty.
I say both are missing the *real* question.
"Who's round is it?"
Apparently during the Tan Hill saga, you couldn't ask that until 3pm. The landlady had decided people starting on the ale before then in these circumstances might be sub-optimal.
Sensible lady
You could ask the question - just implementing the answer might be delayed.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Cameron said he had good ideas as to how to reform the EU - which he did, at the Bloomberg conference. Then he went in to formal talks with them, got nothing back but said he’d achieved the world and we should all vote Remain.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
Anonymously? Sure* (even though the mods can easily ID me from my email address plus details disclosed here). I'm assuming the survey would be anonymous and completed either on paper or online. Not face to face with mum and dad/friends/teacher present? Obviously big problems if the latter. When at school we took part in one of the big ONS/government surveys, definitely asked about drugs, can't remember if it asked about sex. There was no compulsion to answer any of the questions.
I don't see how you can have any policy addressing problems with drug use or underage sex without data on how much of a problem there is and I don't see how you get those data without asking....
Absolutely. In a similar way, there is a real paucity of detailed or reliable statistics around transgender issues.
Yep. Re the original questions, one of my concerns would be around the reliability of the data - when we did a similar survey at school a lot of people claimed to have ticked yes to all the drugs listed (whether they actually did, I don't know) simply to freak out the establishment. But there's not an obvious better way.
On transgender issues, one consequence of the GRA is that it's very hard to link records for the same person under different genders (GRA is supposed to prevent disclosure of previously having a different gender). So in e.g. routine medical data, it's very hard to put together a transgender cohort to compare to the general population.
That point in your second para is a very interesting one. And a highly constructive comment btw.
In England (similar in the other UK countries, I think, presumably with devolved ministries) the Health Secretary has power to allow things that would otherwise be illegal but are in public interest. But it can still mean that the data don't exist in an easily accessible form - i.e. you might have to do some probabilistic matching on identifiable data (age of birth, postcode/address, name - surname likely unchanged?). You get a new NHS number if you change gender, for example (in fact I think that happens if you just tell your GP that you've changed gender; I don't think that requires the full GRA process, but I might be wrong - relevant medical history, but excluding indentifiation of previous gender*, then copied across to the new ID). Means that a transgender woman might not get called for prostate screening for example, nor a transgender man for smear tests, as I understand it (they can still have it, just won't be automatically contacted).[1]
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
"It was Justice Kavanaugh’s comments that alarmed me the most on Wednesday. He appears to have bought into the idea that the Constitution is neutral on abortion, the suggestion being that doing so would be both better for the court’s legitimacy and be the only principled interpretation of the Constitution. “This court should be scrupulously neutral on the question of abortion, neither pro-choice nor pro-life,” he said."
NYTimes
Well I think he's right on the constitution part tbh.
You mean, it doesn't mention abortion, any more than it discusses (I presume) the merits of abolishing chattel slavery of Black people?
I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
No, but the 14th Amendment made it explicit that black people were also citizens and whose liberty could not be abridged. (The Supreme Court then gutted its effects in what was probably its worst ever decision.)
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The problem is that the male perverts, when caught in the women’s toilets, will say that they are trans women and that anyone questioning them is transphobic and committing offences under the Gender Recognition Act.
Legislation designed to protect a tiny minority, has given free rein to a larger minority, who are despised by women and seen as an invasion of their protected spaces.
What legislation are you talking about?
Legally changing gender doesn't make it easier for a man to access a female toilet. So what's the link between the legal gender change process and a man accessing a female toilet?
There isn't one unless toilets are policed for gender via a certificate. If they were, yes, a man could be motivated to change gender, get the cert, and show it to gain access.
But they aren't. Nor are they policed for physical genital sex.
Unless you're proposing these things - which you surely aren't - I don't see where you're going with the comment.
The problem isn’t trans women. The problem is men, some of whom are sex offenders, posing as trans women.
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
Women were certainly regarded as citizens even in 1788 (when the constitution was ratified), and therefore entitled to constitutional protections. Foetuses certainly weren't, and aren't.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
The biggest problem with that plan was the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification of it. To many of the BREXIT persuasion, it was a clear sign that the political class would simply evade any such attempted restrictions and would go with ever closer union, every single time.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
I read a piece over the weekend where it was hoped that SCOTUS would protect abortion on the grounds this legal principle might be used to stop the second amendment.
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
I can't see particularly where abortion is mentioned in the US constitution. For either side of the argument. Can't think abortions, safe or otherwise were particularly on the radar of men in 1787. Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
Women were certainly regarded as citizens even in 1788 (when the constitution was ratified), and therefore entitled to constitutional protections. Foetuses certainly weren't, and aren't.
Alito and Thomas would probably argue they were. Kavanaugh goes for neutrality on this point (I agree with him, but not perhaps his "if this then that" follow on)
Small orange diamondOnly vaccinated and recovered people can enter non-essential shops, cultural and leisure centres Small orange diamondUnvaccinated can only meet two people from another household Small orange diamond German Parliament to discuss a vaccine mandate - from February 2022 https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1466412928404439048?s=20
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
And maybe a corollary, that HYUFD will chip in with "Tory government will correctly never allow an indyref2 as long as it is in power" or similar words.
Prediction for the Old Bexley & Sidcup by-election:
Con 44% Lab 28% RefUK 20% LD 5% Green 2% Others 1%
Turnout 38%
That feels about right to me, though I would probably put the LDs down at closer to 2-3%, Green maybe a bit higher, and REFUK not quite at 20%.
Some telling facts in the Britain Elects previous which say a lot about which way you'd expect this one to go:
- two are in the top 10 wards in London for owner-occupation - two are in the top 10 wards in London for population born in the UK - two are in the top 10 wards in London for White British ethnicity.
In other words it is a very non-London like constituency that happens to have been plonked down on the edge of London.
True, although I just noticed that the far north-western tip of the constituency is only 1.8 miles from Woolwich Arsenal train station.
Thinking of coining Selebian's Law of politicalbetting.com:
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
I've got to say Cyclefree going full blown TERF is a change in style I am very happy to see.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
The German approach is the one we should follow.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
Providing that such requirements only affect those unvaccinated, rather than imposing significant requirements on both the vaccinated population and millions of small businesses.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
The UK didn't have any cards since the closer union thing was fluff and not in the voting rights.
The UK could deem anything it pleased "closer union" and it wouldn't change a damned thing, because voting reform didn't happen. The Eurozone could pass it anyway via QMV and we would have been muttering away about closer union on the sidelines utterly ignored.
Unless a veto were introduced into voting rights, you're talking tosh in thinking it meant anything. Please show me where the voting rights were amended.
Irrelevant. Look at the Fiscal Compact. No thanks very much, we said. We could do and have done it at any time. But to reassure people like you we enshrined it in the agreement.
Let them vote for whatever they wanted, we would have said that is ever closer union and if necessary (they vote not to accept any widgets for sale in the EU if they were made in Sale, UK) take it through the courts.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Just look at the trends on Yougov. Even 40% of Leavers think Brexit is going badly. This is not the Brexit that they wanted.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
If you want the voters not to eventually kick the table over, you have to offer them a vote. A meaningful vote.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
It is a bit like that I guess - but the camparision loses traction when you're talking about a multi-ligual continent.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
If you want the voters not to eventually kick the table over, you have to offer them a vote. A meaningful vote.
Nobody honestly believes that Johnson is going to down in history as a great PM, do they
Boris himself .... and possibly HYUFD.
Personally, I think 'as a great PM' is a bit of a stretch. But I think that, as a rule, history judges those panned at the time more kindly, and those lauded at the time, less kindly.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
Yes, I'd like to know the facts about that. Surely for it to be true we'd have to have had many thousands of people languishing on the dole whose attitude was 'I won't get out of bed for £X' but then suddenly flock to the workplace when X is increased by a few hundred quid. Sounds rather implausible to me on several levels.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 27m You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
The German approach is the one we should follow.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
Providing that such requirements only affect those unvaccinated, rather than imposing significant requirements on both the vaccinated population and millions of small businesses.
It takes me all of five seconds to show my vaccination status on my iPhone.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Small orange diamondOnly vaccinated and recovered people can enter non-essential shops, cultural and leisure centres Small orange diamondUnvaccinated can only meet two people from another household Small orange diamond German Parliament to discuss a vaccine mandate - from February 2022 https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1466412928404439048?s=20
Far too authoritarian measures.
Yikes. Misread this strange transliteration of the tweet to mean that the unvaccinated had to wear small orange diamonds and could only meet two people from another household.
Nobody honestly believes that Johnson is going to down in history as a great PM, do they
Boris himself .... and possibly HYUFD.
Personally, I think 'as a great PM' is a bit of a stretch. But I think that, as a rule, history judges those panned at the time more kindly, and those lauded at the time, less kindly.
I think history will judge Johnson very much in the way Macron described him. A great summary here, and also illustrative of the paucity of intelligent political discussion on our mainstream media:
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
The UK didn't have any cards since the closer union thing was fluff and not in the voting rights.
The UK could deem anything it pleased "closer union" and it wouldn't change a damned thing, because voting reform didn't happen. The Eurozone could pass it anyway via QMV and we would have been muttering away about closer union on the sidelines utterly ignored.
Unless a veto were introduced into voting rights, you're talking tosh in thinking it meant anything. Please show me where the voting rights were amended.
Irrelevant. Look at the Fiscal Compact. No thanks very much, we said. We could do and have done it at any time. But to reassure people like you we enshrined it in the agreement.
Let them vote for whatever they wanted, we would have said that is ever closer union and if necessary (they vote not to accept any widgets for sale in the EU if they were made in Sale, UK) take it through the courts.
The Fiscal Compact proves my point not yours. It was a budgetary measure and the UK held an absolute veto on budgetary measures.
The UK wielded its veto on the Fiscal Compact so the rest of the EU moved on without us, because we had a veto. Existing rules, not proposed rules.
Had the reform extended our veto into new areas then that'd be comparable, but it wasn't. We couldn't take anything to the courts since there was no Treaty change and the Courts operate on the basis of Treaties.
Treaty change or it wasn't real. What was negotiated was fluff and not real, if it was real then that would have been reflected by a Treaty change to how the voting system worked. That's what should have happened and was the minimum that Cameron should have got in his negotiations.
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 2h PS. If you don’t want to leave this house, like this guy from Sage, there are no costs to having your movement restricted, in fact it’s a benefit, but let’s not reorder society around people like this, eh?
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Yup, disliking Boris is a pretty mainstream activity in these parts and I live in a Conservative seat.
Intderesting. To win in the UK the Tories need Mr J. Yet in Scotland ...
The Tories will never win in Scotland anyway, it is Labour who needs support from Scottish SNP MPs to make Starmer PM and only then would there be any prospect of indyref2 being allowed
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
And from the number of tenders that we have received recently for work starting in the new year I imagine wages will continue to climb
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Its not representative, I work in the M & E sector so I know how much we are paying for Sparks, Plumbers & Gas Engineers.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
Ok, and is that in any way representative? And where do you get this figure from, while I'm at it?
Skilled trades in building work and related areas have seen significant rises - I am involved in a building company.
I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Yup, disliking Boris is a pretty mainstream activity in these parts and I live in a Conservative seat.
Intderesting. To win in the UK the Tories need Mr J. Yet in Scotland ...
The Tories will never win in Scotland anyway, it is Labour who needs support from Scottish SNP MPs to make Starmer PM and only then would there be any prospect of indyref2 being allowed
Yet in 1992 no Tory majority without the 12 seats the Tories won and in 2017 it was the Scottish seats that helped the Tories stay in power.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They weren't my questions: I think they were @kinabalu 's.
As for GRC's: there's a big issue that people wanting to change gender need to live as their new gender for two years. If you are a man transitioning to a woman, then it means you need to dress as a woman.
IMV a man dressing as a woman going into a men's toilet is going to be in much more physical and mental danger (from comments, bullying in the latter case) than women are from them using women's toilets.
Basically: banning people undergoing the transitioning process from using the toilets of their desired gender would be a big barrier to their transitioning.
Perhaps there's a way around this, although I am far from an expert in these areas. Perhaps there should be a pre-GRC certificate; to say someone is undergoing a transitioning process. This can be obtained from a panel, in a similar manner to the Interim GRC that married people need to get before they get a GRC. Once you get this, you can use women's facilities: but it can be rescinded at any time.
Although there are probably massive holes in that idea, too. Not least it makes an already convoluted process harder.
As an aside, how do you police this anyway? How do you check that that person using that cubicle is, in fact, a woman?
Toilets are an odd thing to focus on imo. And, yes, the policing aspect is interesting to ponder.
One reason for the focus on toilets is because so many women and girls have endured some form of sexual assault in toilets. It was where I was first assaulted when I was about 13. This is not unusual.
Policing: you need to be free to challenge without being accused of phobias. And when someone walks in who is obviously a man and not even trying to pass themselves as a woman or who has an erection or who indecently exposes themselves or who otherwise behaves in an appropriate way then they need to be told to leave and the authorities should support that ejection not accuse women.
Male perverts accessing women's toilets and behaving indecently is a crime and most definitely should be treated seriously, regardless of whether the GRA is reformed or not.
But, again, what's the logical link between an easier legal gender change process and the prevalence of that?
The link is this: to get a GRC now you have to take active steps to live as the sex you want to be. So a transwoman would have to live, act, dress like a woman. If she uses the ladies' loo she will appear to be a woman and will be most unlikely to want to attack other women.
If those requirements are removed as the self-ID crowd want, there is no requirement at all - no medical diagnosis, no need to dress like a woman or act like one at all. Nothing. So a male predator can simply walk into a woman's space, cannot be challenged or ejected because he will say that he is / identifies as a woman and is free to attack or expose himself or masturbate in front of women or be voyeuristic etc. Self-ID provides a charter for sexual predators to get into womens spaces more easily, without the risk of challenge. And if convicted they can then demand to be put into a woman's prison where they have a captive female population to hand.
Self-ID removes existing safeguards for women and girls and provides easier opportunities for predators.
I get that you want it in order to make things easier for genuine trans people. But it will become a predators charter. Any removal of safeguards or taking people on trust because of who they are or what they say they are inevitably results in this. Evidence: priests, sports coaches, any of the very many groups and organisations listed in the IICSA inquiry.
If we really want to make things easier for those with dysphoria we should be making the resources available so that they don't have to wait years even to get an appointment to see a specialist. Abandoning safeguards is not the right response to unconscionable delays.
The prisons point, I get. A male sex offender who then claims to be a woman to try and get their time served in a women's prison. Totally see the issue there. On elite sports I do too.
But on the general point I really don't. Or at least not to anything like the extent that you do.
Eg a male sexual predator can masquerade as female in order to try and enter (most) female spaces. They can do that now. They don't need to have legally changed gender to do it. Legally changing gender doesn't even make it easier since most places are not policed for it.
So I don't see why it being easier to make that legal change should lead to a surge in predatory heterosexual men doing it for abusive or sinister reasons. What would the motive be? What would they gain over and above just masquerading and NOT making the legal change? I don't see the logic.
It's a massive step for a man to legally become a woman - and vice versa - and I think it's a correct and safe assumption that the vast majority of those doing it will be doing it for profound and genuine reasons. And, ok, some won't be. Therefore legislate for exceptions - eg sex offenders in prisons, elite female sport - where birth sex should be the determinant.
Bottom line, I don't see how making the legal gender change process easier maps to a Predators Charter or anything close to it. I truly don't.
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
Not the case with the EU.
Eh? It's arbitrarily selected from the ruling party or parties by the PM. And the members don't have to be MPs. They can be anyone. Quickly plonk some ermine on them and it's done.
Meghan Gallacher MSP @MGallacherMSP · 39m Disappointed that my supplementary question was not selected today during FMQs, given it’s importance to parents and young people who have contacted my office.
Am I missing something? Were people compelled to answer the questions? Almost every official survey I see nowadays also has a 'prefer not to say' option. Nobody should be made to disclose this information, but I don't see the harm in people being asked.
If these data are important (and I would say they probably are, for gauging what should be in sex education, performance on contraception etc - i.e. do particular groups report as much sex as others but have more teenage pregnancies; for guaging drug use and associated harms) then how else are they to be collected?
If it's such an easy and important question to ask of 14 year olds;
Would you feel comfortable answering it here now?
I would, but would these surveys not be anonymous anyway? So asking someone to publicly declare their answers isn't the same as what's proposed.
Here's the thing about 14 year olds. If they don't know what sex is by that age, someone had better tell them, urgently. 14 year olds should not be having sex, but they really need to know about it before they make mistakes. In the same way you should know about finance before you take out a loan, you should know about traffic safety before you drive a car and so on.
SNP sympathizer sympathies with SNP policy shocker.
For what it's worth I'll answer the question (I'm not 14)
Yes to both
I don't really care about your sexual history, nor that of anyone else. I didn't offer mine because I seriously doubt anyone cares about mine.
And listen, either something is right or wrong. Every party has good and bad policies, good and bad politicians. When I've defended Conservative politicians, or expressed admiration for Labour ones, or said that I've voted for Lib Dem ones, nobody tends to bat an eyelid. Your SNP obsession is your problem, not mine.
SNP obsession? they've been running the north part of this island for the best part of 20 years and making an absolute shambles of it.
Yet you say they've going to get your vote.
Yes, for reasons I've made very clear. In my constituency it's probably going to be a straight fight between Conservative and SNP. Last time I voted Lib Dem because they ticked more boxes than any other party. But my VI has changed because I feel more motivated to oppose this government. I think they are doing all kinds of harm and I want to play my part to remove them.
If the government changes before the next election, I will certainly reconsider my VI and I might switch to a different party. But VI is on the here and now, and right now (and right here) it's "whatever gets Boris out".
Interesting polling on Sindy yesterday too, surely reflecting the rancid polling of Johnson there:
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
Minus 80% rating or something like that, in the pollingt a few days ago, wasn't it?
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
Yup, disliking Boris is a pretty mainstream activity in these parts and I live in a Conservative seat.
Intderesting. To win in the UK the Tories need Mr J. Yet in Scotland ...
The Tories will never win in Scotland anyway, it is Labour who needs support from Scottish SNP MPs to make Starmer PM and only then would there be any prospect of indyref2 being allowed
Yet in 1992 no Tory majority without the 12 seats the Tories won and in 2017 it was the Scottish seats that helped the Tories stay in power.
Scotland turns out is very important.
If Scotland was gone then the Tory majority would have been higher both times.
Nobody honestly believes that Johnson is going to down in history as a great PM, do they
Boris himself .... and possibly HYUFD.
Personally, I think 'as a great PM' is a bit of a stretch. But I think that, as a rule, history judges those panned at the time more kindly, and those lauded at the time, less kindly.
I think history will judge Johnson very much in the way Macron described him. A great summary here, and also illustrative of the paucity of intelligent political discussion on our mainstream media:
Welcome to the club. How specific are you? The origin is from Devizes way, and other great stories include someone going from his rural village into Devizes in order to better see an eclipse...
Its also a classic tale of the underdog. Looks like its mocking the thick locals, raking for the cheese, that is of course the reflection of the moon, when in reality the locals are quicker witted than the revenue...
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
Not the case with the EU.
Eh? It's arbitrarily selected from the ruling party or parties by the PM. And the members don't have to be MPs. They can be anyone. Quickly plonk some ermine on them and it's done.
Yes and the PM is an MP from the Parliament we elected, based upon who won the election.
At the last election we had a choice between Boris and Corbyn. If Labour had won, Corbyn would be PM now not Boris.
Who elected Von Der Leyen? Which election did she stand in?
Christopher Snowdon @cjsnowdon · 2h PS. If you don’t want to leave this house, like this guy from Sage, there are no costs to having your movement restricted, in fact it’s a benefit, but let’s not reorder society around people like this, eh?
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.
Not the case with the EU.
Eh? It's arbitrarily selected from the ruling party or parties by the PM. And the members don't have to be MPs. They can be anyone. Quickly plonk some ermine on them and it's done.
Yes and the PM is an MP from the Parliament we elected, based upon who won the election.
At the last election we had a choice between Boris and Corbyn. If Labour had won, Corbyn would be PM now not Boris.
Who elected Von Der Leyen? Which election did she stand in?
But we don't elect PMs either - just MPs. It's a pretty basic constitutional point, not least because Mr Johnson, for insyance, is solely elected by the voters of Uxbridge.
I am musing on whether it is Johnson being shopsoiled that is affecting recent polling on Brexit or whether it is a shop-soiled Brexit that is marking down Johnson. I think mostly the former. People don't like being cheated.
Why have they been cheated? There is a labour shortage which has pushed wages up. That is precisely what (many of them) voted for.
Has it? Do you have a breakdown of wage changes since Brexit?
Yes, I'd like to know the facts about that. Surely for it to be true we'd have to have had many thousands of people languishing on the dole whose attitude was 'I won't get out of bed for £X' but then suddenly flock to the workplace when X is increased by a few hundred quid. Sounds rather implausible to me on several levels.
Mr. Jessop, it's the scientific definition. Broad definitions obviously blur boundaries. Buggering about with language is one of the ways certain people (not you) are trying to 'win' arguments in this area by denouncing those with the temerity to disagree as various types of '-phobes' and '-ists'.
Hermaphrodites were referred to in classical mythology. That doesn't make them commonplace. I do agree that being in a tiny minority doesn't mean they should be ignored. Feel rather sad that the South African sprinter (Caster Semenya? [sp]) has had far rougher treatment than biological men who have identified as women.
Female sports needs to be a category for cisgender women only. Everyone else can go into mens ( Which could probably do with being renamed open ). That effectively bars trans women from sport, but is needed to preserve female sport integrity - and if Semenya is deemed to be a woman (Another argument in itself) she should be able to compete without lowering her testosterone.
I agree with this. Competing at a top level in sport is not a fundamental right, and it's an area where fairness counts.
Although I'd argue that top sports people are generally freaks of nature anyway, to a certain extent. A combination of genetic traits that allow them to succeed at a sport, where someone more 'average' would not, however hard they trained. Michael Phelps' large feet, hyper-extendible joints, long torso and short legs all make him perfect for swimming.
Agreed. But this is not the approach being taken by sports bodies. They are ignoring material reality in favour of feelings. The material reality is that males once they have gone through male puberty are and always will be naturally stronger than women, regardless of how they subsequently identify and even if they go through a full transition. They are allowed to have levels of testosterone in their body that would get a woman athlete banned for doping. How can this possibly be fair.
This material reality means that trans athletes (male to female) have an inherent advantage. It means that womens' sport is dead or largely meaningless because it will be male bodies winning the prizes.
And yet we have reached the stage that feelings are allowed to override material scientific reality. And it is largely the feelings of men which are deemed more important than the concerns, feelings or material reality of women.
Caster Semenya is as I understand it a woman who naturally has large amounts of testosterone in her body. This may be very unusual but is no reason for banning her. But her position is very different from those with male bodies claiming to be women. They should not compete in womens' sport where physical strength matters. A separate transgender category can be created or they can remain in male categories. Where strength does not matter the issue does not really arise and transwomen can compete in female categories.
Or we could I suppose allow women athletes to dope themselves up the eyeballs as women athletes behind the Iron Curtain did so that they can compete on equal terms with transwomen. That is the logic of the transwomen are women approach. The fact that this renders womens' sport meaningless and has huge health impacts for women doing this are unfortunate consequences but, hey, who cares about those.
It is long past the time that we need to say that reality matters and if this does not please those who think that you can simply pretend that it does not exist simply by affirming it, too bad.
I know this feels like a niche issue to some. But it isn't. First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter. Second, because this is stopping any real focus on what transpeople actually need - which is better and earlier medical help so that they can live their lives happily.
And finally because this is another current in the whole "I have my own alternative facts" approach to life and politics which has so demeaned public life and culture in countries like the US. It is a very Trumpian and narcissistic approach to the world, similar to the anti-vaccination movement and other ludicrous conspiracy theories - people thinking that what they say - however untethered to reality - is real, should be validated by others and allowed to inform policy, no matter how dangerous or absurd the consequences.
It's all really messy. However - and I might be wrong - isn't an added complexity with Semenya that performance doping often uses testosterone, and therefore she was falling foul of the drug testing regime as well - until she proved they were her natural levels? From memory, women like Semenya might be forced to take drugs to get her testosterone levels down. That's really wrong IMO.
I just don't see competing in sports as anything like a fundamental right; and it's a place where 'fairness' matters. Hence, with regret, I've formed my position (which in this case is the same as yours).
" First, because women are a majority of the population (just) not some tiny minority so changes which harm their rights matter."
I disagree with this. Numbers should not matter wrt rights, and changes that discriminate against a minority also matter. That's true for sex, gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
There's 2 key questions and imo they can be uncoupled. What should the process be to legally change gender? Which things in society (if any) should be default governed by sex not gender?
So, eg, you could support a streamlined process for gender change but at the same time think that (eg) pro sports and prisons should be default sex based. Or, the opposite, you could think the gender change process should remain highly controlled and medicalized but that once done birth sex is irrelevant and gender is the correct default criterion for almost everything.
This type of shade never sees the light of day. It's either 'Pure self-ID for gender and sex doesn't matter a jot' or it's 'transgenderism flies in the face of science and is a perverts' charter representing an existential threat to women and their rights'.
Perhaps both sides feel their extremist hyperbole is mainly a response to that of the other side's. The debate certainly seems more 'vibrant' here than elsewhere. Eg it will be interesting to see how things develop in Germany where (aiui) the new government is pledged to implement reforms very similar to those the May government were looking at in 2018.
Well, it sees the light of day from me. It's a pure numbers game: BOTH there are genuine transgender people who deserve support and protection AND there are chancers around who are happy to look for sex, unfair sporting success, etc under the guise of transgenderism.
This isn't even a new or interesting problem. look at scoutmasters: there's a lot of men who want to become scoutmasters for the most praiseworthy reasons imaginable, and a lot of men who want to exploit the kiddie fiddling possibilities of the situation. We support, encourage and train the first lot, and try to vigilantly exclude the second. We err on the side of overvigilance, or try to, and that inevitably means that injustices occur. That's life. The same principle requires that gender dysphoric formerly male prisoners can stay in male prisons and bloody well lump it. Not difficult.
Suggest you look at Girl Guides who are currently, after complaints by parents, doing an inquiry into how the Head Guide in Nottingham is a man with a BDSM fetish who also poses pictures of themselves cradling illegal guns. They have also had issues re retaliation against female whistleblowers who have raised concern about whether they are taking their safeguarding obligations seriously. They are also giving guidance on what contraceptives to give 13 year old girls on guide trips even though (a) 13 is way below the age of consent and (b) such trips should be female only so why would contraception be needed.
@JosiasJessop's 2 questions are a sensible start. My answer to the first is that an application for a GRC should be as now ie it should require an objective external medical test because of the legal implications of such a change not just for the person concerned but for others and society at large. Expecting an external medical diagnosis is no more onerous than expecting one before getting cancer treatment. The delays are an issue of resources not a reason for doing away with the checks.
As to the second, the answer should be risk based. I would have the default as sex but permit gender provided there was little or no risk to others of doing so. We do not yet have data on whether men who do have gender dysphoria still remain in any sense an actual or potential risk to women. Until we do safeguarding should take priority. Nor do we know how many men who claim to be trans are in fact suffering from autogynephilia (do not Google this at work). Again until we do, men with male bodies should be kept out of female spaces.
The trouble is that those proposing very significant change are not asking these sensible questions. They simply pooh-pooh the very idea that there might be a conflict or risks or detrimental effects on others. They have got their way for quite a long time, in part by their insistence on "no debate". But women are now appreciating what these changes could mean and are fighting back and demanding both a debate and that no changes be made until these and many other questions are asked and answered. That is not extremism. It is sensible.
They were MY 2 questions!
My view isn't the same as yours but it's not totally different ballpark either.
I don't think an easier gender change process, based mainly on self-ID, would lead to widespread abuse. I think its main impact would be positive for the small but significant number of people directly affected - transgender people - and neutral for everybody else. The lives of this minority made better and nobody else any the wiser as they go about their lives. This was the consensus when the reforms were being considered here by the May government. They were shelved imo for reasons unrelated to evidence and reason. As I mentioned before, the new German government is pledged to implement something similar so it will be interesting to see how that develops. Will there be a backlash like here? Will they soon be having the same sort of culture war about it as we are?
But an easier, less medicalized process doesn't imo mean end of story. What about things in society where you can reasonably argue that sex is more relevant than gender? Pro sports say? Prisons? Refuges? No reason not have bespoke rules around some of this. Based on risk, as you say, but also on the opinion of women if there is a clear consensus there. And you can argue the default either way. Exclude trans unless, or include trans unless. I think the latter because that is in accord with the general principle we usually aspire to for minorities.
So, make it easier, trust people, allow them to be themselves when not harming others, and consider cases for exclusion - eg sports and prisons - based on evidence and reason not on ignorance and prejudice.
You are being naive. Men are already abusing self-ID. See what's happened in the Girl Guides or in the rape crisis centre in Scotland. Or the rape therapy group in Brighton. Or in California jails for women. Or in womens' prisons here.
And real harm is happening now to real women. The women raped by men claiming to be trans - in prison and out of it. The rape victims denied therapy because they did not want a man present. The rape victims told by the Head of the Scottish rape crisis Centre that they were bigots for not wanting men around etc. The girls refusing to use unisex toilets in school because they do not want boys around when they are menstruating.
I don't think you have a clue as to how real the fear is when womens boundaries are breached by men. Nor why we are suspicious about men who demand entry into our spaces as of right rather than with our permission. Why should we trust someone who aggressively demands and insists rather than politely ask and back off if refused?
Don't think I'm being naive. I've never said there are no instances of men faking trans for nefarious purposes. Nor instances of 'transphobia' being wrongly alleged in order to squash valid concerns.
What I'm suggesting is we have a quicker easier process to legally change gender. We treat the people who make the change as being of the gender they have transitioned to. We make exceptions to this if there are solid genuine reasons to do so. Eg (for me) elite sports and prisons spring to mind, but that would be a debate to be had.
What's wrong with that?
I'll tell you why.
Transition is a major undertaking. So before people do it, they should be certain and take the time to consider all aspects.
Second, a legal change has consequences for spouses and children. Their rights need to be considered and taken into account.
Third, a legal change has implications for the data which is collected and held and used to inform all sorts of public, criminal, policing and health policy, as well as legal cases which are based on sex. If this data and statistics are distorted this will impact - often adversely - on others who rely on it for their legal rights; see, for instance, the use of the comparator in equal pay claims.
Fourth, it has legal and social consequences for those in the sex to which the person changes. Someone who fully transitions to being a woman may remain biologically a male but - other than for her own health needs - this does not generally impact other women. But someone who doesn't transition at all but simply declares it does have an impact because that person retains a male body and all the physical, sexual and other attributes that go with that - and these do have an impact on other women.
So while I would certainly support additional resources to make the process of getting a diagnosis and treatment faster and easier, I think that for such a life-changing decision with considerable impact on others, I think it right that the final legal change not be speeded up and that there needs to be external objective medical validation of what the person is saying.
And why just elite sports? Why not all sports? What about domestic violence refuges? Or rape centres? Or hospital wards? Or changing rooms? Or the Girl Guides? Etc The reasons for protecting women in prisons are just as valid for women and girls in all these other situations as well. Pretty soon you end up in the situation you have now where so long as the reasons for single sex spaces are legitimate and proportionate you can have them (the current situation under the Equality Act, Schedule 7 - if you must know).
Johnson so key to Brexit he decided at the last minute which side he would back
As did much of the country CHB.
Cameron's failed renegotiations were the final straw for many people, myself included, to show that the EU couldn't be reformed for the better.
What would he have had to have delivered to have made you change your mind?
David Cameron gave a good vision of how reform should have taken place in his Bloomberg speech.
Cameron's first point in the Bloomberg speech was about the need to protect non-Eurozone members in the future with the way the EU was evolving. The Eurozone memberstates had a majority under QMV rules so going forwards the Eurozone if they agreed on a reform that suited them could pass a law without any input from non-Eurozone members.
In particular there was talk about "double majority" QMV requiring a QMV majority of non-Euro and Euromember states in order for a proposed law to affect non-Euro members. That still wouldn't have been a return to unanimity as required in the past, but would have been a safeguard.
But nothing happened. There was no fundamental or serious reform to the EU that happened. All of Cameron's proposals in Bloomberg (and there were more than that first one) were roundly rejected in the negotiations.
Cameron set out to reform the EU and instead proved it couldn't be reformed.
Don't disagree - the EU was always unlikely to change imo and he did exempt the UK from those changes but I hear you.
He didn't exempt the UK from those changes. There was no change to the voting system.
Mealy-mouthed words about being exempt from "further union" doesn't mean anything unless the voting system is amended to reflect that reality. It wasn't, was it?
The UK held all the cards, Philip. Don't like ABC measure? We hereby deem it closer union and we reject it.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
IIRC Camo made a Cast Iron Guarantee on the matter didn't he?
Too late by that point.
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
I don't have a clue what point you're trying to make.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
If you want the voters not to eventually kick the table over, you have to offer them a vote. A meaningful vote.
I think we might be in agreement.
My biggest disillusion with the EU came when (a) countries were told to 'have another go' when referenda went the wrong way, and when (b) the UK was never given a referendum on Lisbon, because 'it was a substantially different treaty', and (c) when Brown was so ashamed at this that he snuck in to sign away from the cameras...
Comments
New Independence poll, Ipsos MORI 22 - 29 Nov (changes vs 30 Apr - 3 May);
Yes ~ 52% (+5)
No ~ 43% (-4)
Don't Know ~ 4% (-2)
Excluding DK
Yes ~ 55% (+5 / +10)
No ~ 45% (-5 / -10) https://t.co/7mWCL0FlSE
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1466026106746814469?t=X_8hILEpGmcpBQA9GePEBw&s=19
Then the cynic in me wondered a hyper partisan SCOTUS wouldn't give a shit and effectively ban abortion in GOP states and then stop Dem states from infringing on the second amendment.
Limited to the present circumstances only.
@DPJHodges
·
27m
You don’t need to be an anti-vaxxer to be concerned about the concept of state mandated vaccines.
Instead the negotiations were blitzed and over and done with in no time, because no negotiations happened. Had Cameron played harder ball, rejected the initial proposals, said to Merkel "I will have to recommend Leave unless there's serious movement" then who knows where we'd be now?
But he didn't. He fluffed it, and it meant serious reform was never going to happen. If we'd backed Remain in 2016 that would be it, we'd never get safeguards protecting us from Eurozone QMV or anything else that mattered.
Ban antivaxxers from every shop and business and also stop them meeting other people.
Will allow everyone properly vaccinated to live normal lives.
Both liberal & conservative justices can probably tangentially use other parts of the constitution to do what they want on abortion to suit whichever side they're on mind.
Few people are in favour of abortion as a thing itself. It's just that I believe people must retain control over their bodies, and this includes women who are pregnant and don't want to be (as well as those refusing the vaccine).
Ideally no-one would become pregnant if they didn't want to be pregnant, and no-one would have cause to change their mind during a pregnancy, but sadly things do not always go according to plan, which is why we need backups and failsafes. And that includes abortion.
The thing about the debate that mystifies is that both sides should be able to agree on providing free contraception and good sex education, so that the number of unintended pregnancies is reduced. The opposition to this from some makes me suspicious of their motivations - which brings me back to that politico article.
I say both are missing the *real* question.
"Who's round is it?"
NYTimes
It's quite likely that the court will strike down the Texas law - which only the real psychos like Alito have any regard for - and also overturn Roe.
I think I prefer a health insurance scheme. If you don't have the vaccine, you need to pay for insurance in case you need care for covid.
On Scottish matters, worth taking a look at this brief clip of the Scottish Labour leader in action at FMQs. Pretty impressive. Nicola looks as if she's swallowed a hornet. He could do well if he ever gets a fair wind (I know...).
https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1466407969973846017?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
Small orange diamondOnly vaccinated and recovered people can enter non-essential shops, cultural and leisure centres
Small orange diamondUnvaccinated can only meet two people from another household
Small orange diamond German Parliament to discuss a vaccine mandate - from February 2022
https://twitter.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1466412928404439048?s=20
However they are a burden on the NHS and the NHS needs funding, so it would be reasonable to have a Covid Tax to fund the NHS just as smokers are expected to pay taxes to fund it.
A 2% increase to Income Tax, which anyone who is vaccinated is exempt from, would raise revenues to fund the NHS and not ban anyone from doing anything they please.
That's the shame imo about Brexit. We genuinely held all the cards. And we threw it away.
Nonetheless, further evidence why this UK Tory government will correctly never allow an indyref2 as long as it is in power as it would be too risky
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-12/Ipsos MORI Scottish Political Monitor_Data tables_November 2021_V1_PUBLIC_0.pdf
The UK could deem anything it pleased "closer union" and it wouldn't change a damned thing, because voting reform didn't happen. The Eurozone could pass it anyway via QMV and we would have been muttering away about closer union on the sidelines utterly ignored.
Unless a veto were introduced into voting rights, you're talking tosh in thinking it meant anything. Please show me where the voting rights were amended.
I think things will gradually improve now we're out and the EU starts to realise that it's actually they who are the baddies.
If those requirements are removed as the self-ID crowd want, there is no requirement at all - no medical diagnosis, no need to dress like a woman or act like one at all. Nothing. So a male predator can simply walk into a woman's space, cannot be challenged or ejected because he will say that he is / identifies as a woman and is free to attack or expose himself or masturbate in front of women or be voyeuristic etc. Self-ID provides a charter for sexual predators to get into womens spaces more easily, without the risk of challenge. And if convicted they can then demand to be put into a woman's prison where they have a captive female population to hand.
Self-ID removes existing safeguards for women and girls and provides easier opportunities for predators.
I get that you want it in order to make things easier for genuine trans people. But it will become a predators charter. Any removal of safeguards or taking people on trust because of who they are or what they say they are inevitably results in this. Evidence: priests, sports coaches, any of the very many groups and organisations listed in the IICSA inquiry.
If we really want to make things easier for those with dysphoria we should be making the resources available so that they don't have to wait years even to get an appointment to see a specialist. Abandoning safeguards is not the right response to unconscionable delays.
You could ask the question - just implementing the answer might be delayed.
https://www.cityam.com/coronavirus-u-turn-japan-reverses-covid-travel-ban-as-omicron-variant-increasingly-appears-to-be-mild-variant/
*not sure what happens if the person had had a sex-identifying condition or procedure in the past, e.g. hysterectomy, testicular cancer etc
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/sexual-health/should-trans-men-have-cervical-screening-tests/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrakers
(The Supreme Court then gutted its effects in what was probably its worst ever decision.)
Foetuses certainly weren't, and aren't.
At the time, I said that we should have implemented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and made it clear that all such future treaties were subject to referenda. It's not as if there aren't a number of countries in the EU, for which that was so.
As replies to an original post grow in number (regardless of original topic or scope), the probability of a comparison or example involving transgender issues approaches 1.
(Nigel's fault this time, although Kinabalu, Cyclefree and Josias were having a parallel discussion too)
PS Thought my memory might be wrong, so checked: that's not the net rating, but the percent who think he's crap, offset by just 16% who are positive. NB that he is not doing well with ScoTories, which entirely bears out my experience of the characteristic old fart voter here who does not like a clown in charge:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ratings are very low in Scotland. 4 in 5 Scots (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the way he is doing his job as Prime Minister, while just 16% are satisfied. This is the lowest level ever recorded by Ipsos MORI – Johnson’s previous lowest rating was in October 2020, when 76% were dissatisfied with his performance as Prime Minister, while in April 2021 64% were dissatisfied. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who voted Conservative at the 2019 General Election say they are dissatisfied."
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/boris-johnsons-ratings-hit-record-low-scotland-snp-support-stays-strong
Let them vote for whatever they wanted, we would have said that is ever closer union and if necessary (they vote not to accept any widgets for sale in the EU if they were made in Sale, UK) take it through the courts.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/how-the-government-is-handling-the-issue-of-brexit-in-the-uk
As a Remain voter, it makes me giggle to hear people suggesting that the way to prevent BREXIT was to prevent the voters getting... too close? to certain matters
For generations, the pitch in the western world has been Democracy Rules OK. Telling the voters, now, that they "have no choice" is not an answer. Telling them they have no choice because the rule book says - just invites the rule book to be torn up.
As J A Froude said in "Caesar, A sketch" - "Constitutions are made for men, not men for constitutions". The Roman Republic died because the oligarchy may or may not have been right - the constitution, written and unwritten said they had the power. The people then backed the breaking of the constitution.
But I can tell you that the EU is not democratic at all. The voters have no say in the matter of the executive.
Super-spreader event in Norway infects up to SIXTY people out of 120
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10266563/Now-dont-invite-FIVE-guests-Christmas-party-says-minister.html
Con 48
Lab 32
RefUK 11
Green 3
LD 3
Oth 2
Turnout 40%
https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1466122815464169476?t=HvKq5STRZoaY4-H_C1_0UQ&s=19
The UK wielded its veto on the Fiscal Compact so the rest of the EU moved on without us, because we had a veto. Existing rules, not proposed rules.
Had the reform extended our veto into new areas then that'd be comparable, but it wasn't. We couldn't take anything to the courts since there was no Treaty change and the Courts operate on the basis of Treaties.
Treaty change or it wasn't real. What was negotiated was fluff and not real, if it was real then that would have been reflected by a Treaty change to how the voting system worked. That's what should have happened and was the minimum that Cameron should have got in his negotiations.
Christopher Snowdon
@cjsnowdon
·
2h
PS. If you don’t want to leave this house, like this guy from Sage, there are no costs to having your movement restricted, in fact it’s a benefit, but let’s not reorder society around people like this, eh?
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1466389771719254023
Not the case with the EU.
Scotland turns out is very important.
But on the general point I really don't. Or at least not to anything like the extent that you do.
Eg a male sexual predator can masquerade as female in order to try and enter (most) female spaces. They can do that now. They don't need to have legally changed gender to do it. Legally changing gender doesn't even make it easier since most places are not policed for it.
So I don't see why it being easier to make that legal change should lead to a surge in predatory heterosexual men doing it for abusive or sinister reasons. What would the motive be? What would they gain over and above just masquerading and NOT making the legal change? I don't see the logic.
It's a massive step for a man to legally become a woman - and vice versa - and I think it's a correct and safe assumption that the vast majority of those doing it will be doing it for profound and genuine reasons. And, ok, some won't be. Therefore legislate for exceptions - eg sex offenders in prisons, elite female sport - where birth sex should be the determinant.
Bottom line, I don't see how making the legal gender change process easier maps to a Predators Charter or anything close to it. I truly don't.
Lab 34
REFUK 8
Green 5
LD 3
Others 4
Turnout 38%
Its also a classic tale of the underdog. Looks like its mocking the thick locals, raking for the cheese, that is of course the reflection of the moon, when in reality the locals are quicker witted than the revenue...
At the last election we had a choice between Boris and Corbyn. If Labour had won, Corbyn would be PM now not Boris.
Who elected Von Der Leyen? Which election did she stand in?
Though the parallel is not complete - I agree.
Transition is a major undertaking. So before people do it, they should be certain and take the time to consider all aspects.
Second, a legal change has consequences for spouses and children. Their rights need to be considered and taken into account.
Third, a legal change has implications for the data which is collected and held and used to inform all sorts of public, criminal, policing and health policy, as well as legal cases which are based on sex. If this data and statistics are distorted this will impact - often adversely - on others who rely on it for their legal rights; see, for instance, the use of the comparator in equal pay claims.
Fourth, it has legal and social consequences for those in the sex to which the person changes. Someone who fully transitions to being a woman may remain biologically a male but - other than for her own health needs - this does not generally impact other women. But someone who doesn't transition at all but simply declares it does have an impact because that person retains a male body and all the physical, sexual and other attributes that go with that - and these do have an impact on other women.
So while I would certainly support additional resources to make the process of getting a diagnosis and treatment faster and easier, I think that for such a life-changing decision with considerable impact on others, I think it right that the final legal change not be speeded up and that there needs to be external objective medical validation of what the person is saying.
And why just elite sports? Why not all sports? What about domestic violence refuges? Or rape centres? Or hospital wards? Or changing rooms? Or the Girl Guides? Etc The reasons for protecting women in prisons are just as valid for women and girls in all these other situations as well. Pretty soon you end up in the situation you have now where so long as the reasons for single sex spaces are legitimate and proportionate you can have them (the current situation under the Equality Act, Schedule 7 - if you must know).
So why change it?