Howdy, Stranger!

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

Punters split almost 50-50 on an early BJ exit – politicalbetting.com

1246710

Comments

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,193
    algarkirk said:

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453

    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?"
  • Pulpstar said:

    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
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,108

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    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.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,773

    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.
    Except many will bristle at "Papers (please)" at the door...

    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.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,997
    Foxy said:

    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);

    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
    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...).

    https://twitter.com/AnasSarwar/status/1466407969973846017?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,368

    "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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,343
    Germany imposing harsh new rules

    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
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,773
    Carnyx said:

    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.
  • 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.
  • Sandpit said:

    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.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,812

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    edited December 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    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?
  • 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.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,812
    edited December 2021
    Foxy said:

    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. Topping, how would that work in practice, though? No treaty was changed, no explicit legal right granted.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,995
    algarkirk said:

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,368
    Carnyx said:

    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 ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,343
    edited December 2021
    Foxy said:

    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);

    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
    Actually 50% Yes including undecideds amongst all voters.

    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
  • TOPPING said:

    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.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795

    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.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254
    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    Pulpstar said:

    I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
    Three-Fifths Clause?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    Pulpstar said:

    I can't remember if it mentions slavery. Does it ?
    Ceretainly didn't extend the notion of liberty and equality to these people.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    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.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,292
    Carnyx said:

    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]

    *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/
  • I've only just found out I'm a Moonraker, and why..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrakers
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,108
    edited December 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    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.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    kinabalu said:

    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've only just found out I'm a Moonraker, and why..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrakers

    You'll need a 1979-era Roger Moore safari shirt.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 77,108
    edited December 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    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.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    TOPPING said:

    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    Actually 50% Yes including undecideds amongst all voters.

    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
    Or evidence that the Tories have a corrupt and overbearing leader who's electorally toxic in Scotland ?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,292
    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)
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254


    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?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,368
    Nigelb said:

    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)
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,323
    edited December 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Germany imposing harsh new rules

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    Selebian said:

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,714
    TimS said:

    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.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254
    Selebian said:

    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.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022

    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.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,292
    We'll all be having Omicron parties before you know it :wink:
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    edited December 2021

    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."

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/boris-johnsons-ratings-hit-record-low-scotland-snp-support-stays-strong
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,812

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,485
    TOPPING said:

    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.

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/how-the-government-is-handling-the-issue-of-brexit-in-the-uk

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    JBriskin3 said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    Farooq said:

    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 ...
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    JBriskin3 said:

    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?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    JBriskin3 said:

    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.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254
    Carnyx said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    Farooq said:

    I don't think they do. I think the Conservatives can do just fine without him. These is talent there, some of it unused by the party.
    I can see that too - but whether they can release themselves from the current trap remains to be seen.
  • Selebian said:

    We'll all be having Omicron parties before you know it :wink:
    Norway giving it a try...

    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
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    Farooq said:

    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
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 1,254

    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.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Nigelb said:

    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.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,012
    edited December 2021
    Farooq said:

    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.
  • Sandpit said:

    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.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,687

    Yes that looks realistic to me although I hope Greens do better and RefUK worse

    I have added the GE 2019 % in brackets
    My guess:

    Con 48
    Lab 32
    RefUK 11
    Green 3
    LD 3
    Oth 2

    Turnout 40%
  • On the Mechanical & Electrical side wages have gone up 10-15% this year and continue upwards
    My salary has gone up 35% thanks to Brexit.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Ratters said:

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,485
    TimT said:

    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:

    https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1466122815464169476?t=HvKq5STRZoaY4-H_C1_0UQ&s=19
  • TOPPING said:

    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?

    https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1466389771719254023
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    Farooq said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,343
    Carnyx said:

    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
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375

    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
  • Carnyx said:

    You mean, like the UK Cabinet?
    The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.

    Not the case with the EU.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    edited December 2021
    Farooq said:

    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.
  • HYUFD said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,995
    Cyclefree said:

    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.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    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.
  • 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.
  • Labour aren't fit for power based on these lyrics.


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620
    Foxy said:

    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:

    https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1466122815464169476?t=HvKq5STRZoaY4-H_C1_0UQ&s=19
    Very interesting - and not what one might expect either.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,485

    My guess:

    Con 48
    Lab 32
    RefUK 11
    Green 3
    LD 3
    Oth 2

    Turnout 40%
    Con 46
    Lab 34
    REFUK 8
    Green 5
    LD 3
    Others 4

    Turnout 38%

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,773

    I've only just found out I'm a Moonraker, and why..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonrakers

    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...
  • Carnyx said:

    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?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,873
    edited December 2021


    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

    The iSAGE lot would have never ended lockdown....we would currently be (puts on Geordie accent) entering day 734 in the BIG BROTHER (STATE) house.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,620

    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.

    Though the parallel is not complete - I agree.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,812

    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.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-set-most-widespread-pay-rises-over-decade-cbi-2021-09-19/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,651
    edited December 2021
    kinabalu said:

    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).

    So why change it?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,773
    JBriskin3 said:

    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...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,343
    Eric Ciotti, on the conservative right of Les Republicains, wins the first round of the party's primary to choose its candidate for the 2022 presidential election. He will face the moderate Valeire Pecresse in the runoff, having also knocked out Barnier and Bertrand.

    Ciotti has already said he would endorse Zemmour in the runoff if he did not get through and Zemmour did and would be a clear shift to the right by Les Republicains if he does get the nomination to take on Macron

    Pecresse may still win in the runoff though after Bertrand has just endorsed her
    https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1466404166566350859?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466417762709000217?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466419582600626193?s=20
    https://twitter.com/ElectsContext/status/1466424026537070593?s=20
  • isamisam Posts: 41,482
    edited December 2021

    Labour aren't fit for power based on these lyrics.


    Fuck me

    The last line could be “they think that they’re something special”?

    And ‘tiers’ is an easy swap for the original’s ‘tears’ in line three
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,343
    edited December 2021

    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.
    Actually in 1992 the Conservatives won a majority of 104 in England and in 2017 even Theresa May got a majority of 60 in England and had there been no Scottish seats she would have won a majority in England, Wales and NI alone without needing the DUP
  • Foxy said:

    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);

    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
    Same poll also showed a substantial swing to the SNP & Greens in VI, which could mean one of two things, among others:

    - there's been a significant shift over recent weeks in favour of independence and the SNP/Greens

    Or

    - its a bit of an outlier and we should wait to see whether other pollsters pick up such a significant swing.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,453
    Farooq said:

    I think what's needed here is data. Sorry for not taking your word for it.
    https://www.hudsoncontract.co.uk/construction-pay-trends/ has some open source numbers, if you like.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,292
    TimT said:

    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.
    Yep, me too! I thought, "surely not", then realised it was just the replacement text for the bullet point images.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,530
    Foxy said:

    Con 46
    Lab 34
    REFUK 8
    Green 5
    LD 3
    Others 4

    Turnout 38%

    My guess;

    Con 54% (64.5%)
    Lab 25% (23.5%)
    RefUK 14%
    LD 2%(8.3%)
    Green 4%(3.2%)
    Others 1%
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,953
    The BBC's Health Correspondent seems to think Omicron will find it harder to spread in the UK because "there is plenty of Delta circulating". In South Africa it " did not have to work hard to compete" because infection levels were low when it took hold.

    God help us if this is the level of science journalism at the BBC now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,812

    The Cabinet is elected based upon the Parliament we elect.

    Not the case with the EU.
    The Member States vote for parties who want to be in the EU. So perfectly democratic. Those Member States who don't want to be in the EU vote for parties who want to leave. Also perfectly democratic.

    It is exactly the same. Can you change the laws that were decided by the cabinet and voted for in parliament on mask wearing? I don't believe you can. But it is still a democratic process.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,458
    edited December 2021

    Norway giving it a try...

    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
    Something lost in translation here I assume? Or a weird use of up to perhaps. 60/120 at a single event sounds implausible.
  • 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...
    I lived in Devizes for a couple of years just over ten years ago. I live about fifteen miles from there now, but was there last week for my booster. I knew there was a pub in Swindon called the Moonrakers, but had no idea it was a name for Wiltshire folk.
This discussion has been closed.