Sunak still favourite for next CON leader but only a 20% chance – politicalbetting.com

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Aslan said:

noneoftheabove said:

Aslan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?

Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.

If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.

This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.

Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?

I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.

Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.

Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.

That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.

"I knew a man with a micro-penis" - really? How on earth did this come up in conversation?

CarlottaVance said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis.

How do you know that?

Was that part of his statement?

What was part of his statement was his experience of rape. One of the "transphobic" (sic) concerns of natal women and self-ID.

One of the interesting things in the statement was, "I'm trans. Or to be more accurate, I want to be."

Off topic:

We've always though that the beck through Shipley Glen looks like the ideal spot for Dippers, but never seen one. Yesterday after work I went for a walk and saw not one, not two, but three Dippers doing their thing in the beck. A lovely sight.

CarlottaVance said:

File under, “No sh*t, Sherlock

UKRAINE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER SAYS RUSSIA TRANSFERRING FORCES FROM NORTH OF UKRAINE TO EASTERN UKRAINE TO ENCIRCLE OUR TROOPS

https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1509078540804927495

Russians do what Russians said they were going to do.

Can hardly be a surprise.

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Yes, you are right, Blair did lie and some of his cronies misled the Hutton enquiry. They also tried to force the BBC to amend its coverage of their illegal war to be more deferential

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/aug/29/hutton.labourparty

Theuniondivvie said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Genuine question, what is the current official Tory party position on the Iraq war in which they were so complicit?

Naughty. The were told by the government of the day that there were WMD in Iraq which posed a real danger to the UK. I'm not sure they were all gathered round in COBRA so had to take the government's word for it. And of course we all know how that turned out.

Aslan said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Aslan said:

noneoftheabove said:

Aslan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?

Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.

If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.

This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.

Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?

I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.

Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.

Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.

That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.

No, they don't. And most men would not assault women in shelters, but we still don't let them in. And, just to be clear, most people in the camp complaining about this are actually comfortable with trans women using women's toilets, just as long as they have legally transitioned first.

Who enforces this and how? Do all women have to carry a certificate saying "I have a vagina"? Do restaurant staff have to ask to see a woman's vagina before they allow them in the toilet? Will undercover Met officers be lurking in the ladies loo ready to wrestle to the ground any woman with suspiciously large feet?

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Just want to get my head around that logic. So if a previous PM (or anyone come to that) does something wrong (for instance murder) that is ok if a precedent has been set and they got away with it.

Taz said:

Germany has declared an early warning for gas supply emergency as gas prices rise by 13% today on top of rises earlier in the week.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-declares-early-warning-for-supply-emergency-as-it-prepares-shift-away-from-russian-gas-live/ar-AAVEntV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=9e0e5b2e508f413e81f0a5a6be26c901

While not quite as dramatic (and with fewer dramatic likely consequences) as a NFZ, "The West" refusing to buy Russian gas was always going to impact on The West's own consumers dramatically.

Lots of people seem to be making some pretty wild assumptions about Jamie Wallis' identity on the basis of his statement. As far as I can tell, all he's actually said is he has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and wants to be considered trans, all of which is uncontentious. Let's wait to see what he has to say about whether and at what point he considers himself a woman before getting carried away, maybe? Or is there another source on this I haven't seen yet?

On another point, is he the first out trans MP in the Commons?

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Just want to get my head around that logic. So if a previous PM (or anyone come to that) does something wrong (for instance murder) that is ok if a precedent has been set and they got away with it.

If you are convicted of a criminal offence with a prison sentence over 1 year eg murder you cannot serve as an MP let alone PM anyway.

However ultimately it depends on the electorate Labour did not see such a fall in popularity Labour needed to remove Blair and same applies to the Tories and Boris

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

IshmaelZ said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Aslan said:

noneoftheabove said:

Aslan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?

Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.

If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.

This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.

Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?

I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.

Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.

Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.

That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.

Probably no trans women rape people in the ladies, but we know that pseudo trans women rape women on single sex wards and in prisons. So probably in the ladies' too.

The probability of a trans woman getting attacked in a male toilet is I am sure far higher than the probability of a trans woman or a man pretending to be a trans woman attacking a woman in a female toilet. So if the goal is public safety there is no question what the policy should be. Also, it is fairly easy for a male rapist to gain access to a female toilet if that is their goal, they are not exactly Fort Knox. They could pose as a cleaner for instance - I have cleaned ladies loos myself (they're nicer than the gents but still pretty mingling BTW).

SandyRentool said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Can a woman have a penis? Well a Tory MP is about to, so I guess yes?

Right, I'm going to wade in to this....

They may consider themself to be a woman, but they will not physically be a woman. Not until the appropriate reassignment surgery is performed (if that is what they want to happen).

That's where I stand. Cock and balls? Not a woman.

Freedom for slaves? Ridiculous.
Votes for women? Not on my watch.
Homosexuality? Unnatural.

another_richard said:

SandyRentool said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Can a woman have a penis? Well a Tory MP is about to, so I guess yes?

Right, I'm going to wade in to this....

They may consider themself to be a woman, but they will not physically be a woman. Not until the appropriate reassignment surgery is performed (if that is what they want to happen).

That's where I stand. Cock and balls? Not a woman.

I suspect somewhere over 80% of the country would agree with your definition.

But not the law. So should the law change? And if the government doesn't want to change the law, why does it keep giving the impression that it does?

Taz said:

Germany has declared an early warning for gas supply emergency as gas prices rise by 13% today on top of rises earlier in the week.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/germany-declares-early-warning-for-supply-emergency-as-it-prepares-shift-away-from-russian-gas-live/ar-AAVEntV?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=9e0e5b2e508f413e81f0a5a6be26c901

There is a lot of focus of Germany, but presumably this affects all European importers of gas, IIRC some contrary's (Finland) get 100% of there gas from Russia, and others mostly East European get most, do we know how they are reacting, I am assuming Hungary would be happy to go along with Russian requests? any word from the others?

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Aslan said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Aslan said:

noneoftheabove said:

Aslan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?

Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.

If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.

This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.

Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?

I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.

Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.

Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.

That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.

No, they don't. And most men would not assault women in shelters, but we still don't let them in. And, just to be clear, most people in the camp complaining about this are actually comfortable with trans women using women's toilets, just as long as they have legally transitioned first.

Who enforces this and how? Do all women have to carry a certificate saying "I have a vagina"? Do restaurant staff have to ask to see a woman's vagina before they allow them in the toilet? Will undercover Met officers be lurking in the ladies loo ready to wrestle to the ground any woman with suspiciously large feet?

Who keeps me, a man, out of women's toilets as it stands?

No-one, except for custom and practice, politeness, etc. That doesn't mean I'm "allowed" into them.

We're back to lockdown-type "guidance" vs "law". And we now know what this govt thinks of guidance.

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

I don't recall Michael Howard ever leading the LibDems.Seems highly unlikely.

Taz said:

kjh said:

noneoftheabove said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

Yeah but they aren't are they. I have been in twice during the pandemic (broken leg, paralyzed vocal cord) and nobody asked me. I might have filled in generic forms, but doh they are generic. I guess you will be asked if there could be any doubt eg transitioning, 12 year old girl, etc, but then the hospital needs to make sure.

Honestly this imagined woke stuff is just that- imagined.

Even if they are being asked, deliberately rather than generically, in some places, whats the big deal? It may not be how most people would layout a form, but it is a pretty easy question for us men to answer quickly and with certainty.

I agree. I put my daughter on the car insurance and having answered some questions some of the following ones were consequently nonsense, but I didn't get upset. There is a script for entering into the computer. On the contrary I took it as an opportunity to have a laugh with the person on the other end of the phone who also enjoyed the joke.

Those that get offended need to get a life.

Just as well that person was happy to share the joke. You may have got someone who didnt and although you think they may need to get a life you could have had a whole load of trouble coming your way.

What are you talking about? You don't know what the questions were. It was car insurance. You are being a twit. It wasn't anything medical or about sex. I wouldn't dream of presuming to answer questions like that about my adult daughter. This was simply a comment on generic forms that can result in irrelevant questions that follow previous questions. We all come across that and most of us sensibly don't get offended but make a joke instead.

Eg if I am asked if I am pregnant as a 67 year old man I might respond 'I hope not' rather than getting offended. It is not the person asking the question who needs to get a life but the person unnecessarily taking offence by being asked it.

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

noneoftheabove said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

Yeah but they aren't are they. I have been in twice during the pandemic (broken leg, paralyzed vocal cord) and nobody asked me. I might have filled in generic forms, but doh they are generic. I guess you will be asked if there could be any doubt eg transitioning, 12 year old girl, etc, but then the hospital needs to make sure.

Honestly this imagined woke stuff is just that- imagined.

Even if they are being asked, deliberately rather than generically, in some places, whats the big deal? It may not be how most people would layout a form, but it is a pretty easy question for us men to answer quickly and with certainty.

I agree. I put my daughter on the car insurance and having answered some questions some of the following ones were consequently nonsense, but I didn't get upset. There is a script for entering into the computer. On the contrary I took it as an opportunity to have a laugh with the person on the other end of the phone who also enjoyed the joke.

Those that get offended need to get a life.

Just as well that person was happy to share the joke. You may have got someone who didnt and although you think they may need to get a life you could have had a whole load of trouble coming your way.

What are you talking about? You don't know what the questions were. It was car insurance. You are being a twit. It wasn't anything medical or about sex. I wouldn't dream of presuming to answer questions like that about my adult daughter. This was simply a comment on generic forms that can result in irrelevant questions that follow previous questions. We all come across that and most of us sensibly don't get offended but make a joke instead.

Eg if I am asked if I am pregnant as a 67 year old man I might respond 'I hope not' rather than getting offended. It is not the person asking the question who needs to get a life but the person unnecessarily taking offence by being asked it.

What a funny story.

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Aslan said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Aslan said:

noneoftheabove said:

Aslan said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Some Tories rapidly back-pedalling on transphobia.

What a woke party!

This Tory MP is about to become a woman with a penis. Surely - as Starmer was so terribly wrong accepting such a monstrosity - the Big Dog will have to condemn this deviant and expel him from the party?

Considering the modernist approach of Cameron in accepting LD proposals on gay marriage and rights its really shameful that the Tory party has collapsed into the sewer like this so spectacularly.

If it was a moral crusade I could at least understand it. But it isn't. They have no real view on women with willies, they just think they can whip up the issue in the minds of voters they sneeringly consider to be small-minded idiots.

This all sounds like the left wing misunderstanding the centre rights issues with immigration all over again. Just because people object to self ID and the denial of a biological basis to gender doesn't mean they hate all trans people as deviants. I think a trans woman should not be able to access all women's spaces just because they declare themselves women. I also think that people with gender dysphoria deserve our sympathy, support and, if necessary, the backing of the NHS to physically transition. These are not inconsistent positions.

Should they be used as political jokes to bash Starmer with?

I don't think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at people. I do think it's OK for jokes to be targeted at ridiculous use of language, such as defaulting to people being "assigned" their sex at birth, as if it was the whim of a doctor.

Sex is assigned at birth at the whim of a doctor.

Well, more or less, and only in extreme corner cases. I knew a man with a micro-penis. At another time, he might have had surgery and been raised as a girl.

That is also the trouble with the trans debate. A lot of angst about edge cases. Most trans women don't rape people in the ladies'. Nor, so far as I can tell, do most cis male rapists.

No, they don't. And most men would not assault women in shelters, but we still don't let them in. And, just to be clear, most people in the camp complaining about this are actually comfortable with trans women using women's toilets, just as long as they have legally transitioned first.

Who enforces this and how? Do all women have to carry a certificate saying "I have a vagina"? Do restaurant staff have to ask to see a woman's vagina before they allow them in the toilet? Will undercover Met officers be lurking in the ladies loo ready to wrestle to the ground any woman with suspiciously large feet?

Who keeps me, a man, out of women's toilets as it stands?

No-one, except for custom and practice, politeness, etc. That doesn't mean I'm "allowed" into them.

But you believe yourself to be a man. If you believed yourself to be a woman, and you looked to the outside world like a woman, would you feel comfortable using a male toilet? Or would you be afraid that men would question what you were doing there, given that custom, practice and politeness would suggest that someone who looks like you shouldn't be in the gents.

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

noneoftheabove said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

Yeah but they aren't are they. I have been in twice during the pandemic (broken leg, paralyzed vocal cord) and nobody asked me. I might have filled in generic forms, but doh they are generic. I guess you will be asked if there could be any doubt eg transitioning, 12 year old girl, etc, but then the hospital needs to make sure.

Honestly this imagined woke stuff is just that- imagined.

Even if they are being asked, deliberately rather than generically, in some places, whats the big deal? It may not be how most people would layout a form, but it is a pretty easy question for us men to answer quickly and with certainty.

I agree. I put my daughter on the car insurance and having answered some questions some of the following ones were consequently nonsense, but I didn't get upset. There is a script for entering into the computer. On the contrary I took it as an opportunity to have a laugh with the person on the other end of the phone who also enjoyed the joke.

Those that get offended need to get a life.

Just as well that person was happy to share the joke. You may have got someone who didnt and although you think they may need to get a life you could have had a whole load of trouble coming your way.

What are you talking about? You don't know what the questions were. It was car insurance. You are being a twit. It wasn't anything medical or about sex. I wouldn't dream of presuming to answer questions like that about my adult daughter. This was simply a comment on generic forms that can result in irrelevant questions that follow previous questions. We all come across that and most of us sensibly don't get offended but make a joke instead.

Eg if I am asked if I am pregnant as a 67 year old man I might respond 'I hope not' rather than getting offended. It is not the person asking the question who needs to get a life but the person unnecessarily taking offence by being asked it.

I've 'liked' this, because I agree and would do the same, but every so often, on a phone interview like this, as well as in most walks of like, one comes across a humourless twat.

I personally take the cautious approach now with people on the phone who I have never met.

The point I was making and I was not trying to be provocative or have a go at them, and I don't know why they felt the need to resort to personal abuse, is you can never tell these days.

It is the same at work with people I know, I just won't engage in any banter as such. It is not worth the hassle.

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

noneoftheabove said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

Yeah but they aren't are they. I have been in twice during the pandemic (broken leg, paralyzed vocal cord) and nobody asked me. I might have filled in generic forms, but doh they are generic. I guess you will be asked if there could be any doubt eg transitioning, 12 year old girl, etc, but then the hospital needs to make sure.

Honestly this imagined woke stuff is just that- imagined.

Even if they are being asked, deliberately rather than generically, in some places, whats the big deal? It may not be how most people would layout a form, but it is a pretty easy question for us men to answer quickly and with certainty.

I agree. I put my daughter on the car insurance and having answered some questions some of the following ones were consequently nonsense, but I didn't get upset. There is a script for entering into the computer. On the contrary I took it as an opportunity to have a laugh with the person on the other end of the phone who also enjoyed the joke.

Those that get offended need to get a life.

Just as well that person was happy to share the joke. You may have got someone who didnt and although you think they may need to get a life you could have had a whole load of trouble coming your way.

What are you talking about? You don't know what the questions were. It was car insurance. You are being a twit. It wasn't anything medical or about sex. I wouldn't dream of presuming to answer questions like that about my adult daughter. This was simply a comment on generic forms that can result in irrelevant questions that follow previous questions. We all come across that and most of us sensibly don't get offended but make a joke instead.

Eg if I am asked if I am pregnant as a 67 year old man I might respond 'I hope not' rather than getting offended. It is not the person asking the question who needs to get a life but the person unnecessarily taking offence by being asked it.

I've 'liked' this, because I agree and would do the same, but every so often, on a phone interview like this, as well as in most walks of like, one comes across a humourless twat.

I've liked in return because I agree. Sad if you do and it hasn't happened to me yet. I think it lightens everyone's day to have a laugh. Re @Taz comment I would never say anything that could offend, even unintentionally and have never had a situation where that has arisen. Most of the humour I use will be self depricating.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

This morning on the radio I heard a midwife talking about the Shrewsbury maternity issues refer to the care of babies and birthing persons.

NickPalmer said:

Cookie said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Cookie said:

CarlottaVance said:

This is truly groundbreaking, the UK’s first MP to share that they are trans.

https://twitter.com/benjamincohen/status/1509071412950179841

Worth reading statement.

The most discombobulating thing about this is that an MP 'hooked up with someone I met online'.

Hard to say this without appearing sniffy and hopelessly old-fashioned, but I would have thought MPs would have got that sort of thing out of their systems long before becoming MPs.

I felt just as uncomfortable when I read about Dehenna Davison's internet dating.

MPs are people. Why can't they do legal things like internet dating like anyone else?

Well yes, and I chose my words carefully - I'm not necessarily disapproving, it just doesn't fit with my idea of how an MP lives. In my head, MPs have significantly less chaotic lives than average; are considerably more settled. And I would have thought there would be more risks, rather than less, with hooking up with strangers on the internet than the more traditional meet-some-junior-party-worker route, where at least you have an idea of the individual's background.

I suppose this isn't new - Harvey Proctor, Mark Oaten and that Labour MP from East London with the colourful private life from the post-war era all spring to mind. Only the technology is different.

Yes (not to mention Jeremy Thorpe), and thanks for sparking the interesting debate - don't be put off by the criticisms. The more general point is that MPs are not actually distinctively different people in their non-political lives from anyone else of their social background who has a fairly demanding job. As others have said, your separation from home much of the week presents both challenges and temptations, and you are more liable than most to mocking media stories, but otherwise the normal sort of issues arise. Lots of people see MPs as having doubtful political morals, but otherwise typically solid citizens, most at home opening a bazaar or attending a church service. It's sometimes true, but not especially often.

"not actually distinctively different people in their non-political lives from anyone else of their social background"; " more liable than most to mocking media stories" - yes; true; possibly if you were to subject any random group of 650 people to intense scrutiny you would throw up some very odd and surprising stories indeed.
My wife as a stock phrase for just this sort of occasion: "Don't people get themselves in some pickles?"

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

The Tories cannot get away with a wholesale rewrite of history.

The vote to authorise British troops which took place in the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 was as follows:

Aye: 412, of which 254 Labour, 146 Conservative, 6 UUP, 5 DUP, 1 Independent Conservative
No: 149, of which 54 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP, 4 Plaid, 1 SDLP, 1 Conservative, 1 Independent Health Concern and 84 Labour rebels.
Abstentions 84, of which 17 Conservative.

The Conservatives were even more enthusiastic about the war than Labour. That is simply a statement of fact.

Charles Kennedy was pilloried by the right wing press, but he was the only party leader who had the genuine courage of his principles, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was also right.

"Only"? SNP, PC, SDLP, surely also? Or is there a subtlety I am missing? (not being sarcastic - ISTR quite a lot of flak coming the SNP way then and since)

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

Taz said:

kjh said:

noneoftheabove said:

kjh said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

Yeah but they aren't are they. I have been in twice during the pandemic (broken leg, paralyzed vocal cord) and nobody asked me. I might have filled in generic forms, but doh they are generic. I guess you will be asked if there could be any doubt eg transitioning, 12 year old girl, etc, but then the hospital needs to make sure.

Honestly this imagined woke stuff is just that- imagined.

Even if they are being asked, deliberately rather than generically, in some places, whats the big deal? It may not be how most people would layout a form, but it is a pretty easy question for us men to answer quickly and with certainty.

I agree. I put my daughter on the car insurance and having answered some questions some of the following ones were consequently nonsense, but I didn't get upset. There is a script for entering into the computer. On the contrary I took it as an opportunity to have a laugh with the person on the other end of the phone who also enjoyed the joke.

Those that get offended need to get a life.

Just as well that person was happy to share the joke. You may have got someone who didnt and although you think they may need to get a life you could have had a whole load of trouble coming your way.

What are you talking about? You don't know what the questions were. It was car insurance. You are being a twit. It wasn't anything medical or about sex. I wouldn't dream of presuming to answer questions like that about my adult daughter. This was simply a comment on generic forms that can result in irrelevant questions that follow previous questions. We all come across that and most of us sensibly don't get offended but make a joke instead.

Eg if I am asked if I am pregnant as a 67 year old man I might respond 'I hope not' rather than getting offended. It is not the person asking the question who needs to get a life but the person unnecessarily taking offence by being asked it.

I've 'liked' this, because I agree and would do the same, but every so often, on a phone interview like this, as well as in most walks of like, one comes across a humourless twat.

I personally take the cautious approach now with people on the phone who I have never met.

The point I was making and I was not trying to be provocative or have a go at them, and I don't know why they felt the need to resort to personal abuse, is you can never tell these days.

It is the same at work with people I know, I just won't engage in any banter as such. It is not worth the hassle.

I think you have completely misinterpreted my post @Taz . I never say anything that could be provocative and I don't know where you got that from. I'm talking about innocent stuff. I never take part in banter even with friends. I also apologized for the use of twit.

Nigelb said:

I hadn't realised how far along battery recycling was already.

These guys say they are already recycling 6GWh annually.
https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/press/redwood-materials-creates-the-first-pathways-for-end-of-life-electric-vehicles-kicks-off-in-california

Was always likely to be a growth area. Good to see it happening.

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

This morning on the radio I heard a midwife talking about the Shrewsbury maternity issues refer to the care of babies and birthing persons.

The awful mess the conservatives have got into over this is trying to play it all ways at the same time - the bestest friend to all trans people going through difficult times, or the remarks of Boris last night trying to score party political points.

The Tories stupid approach on trans is trying to be two things at the same time.

We simply need to ask Big G if Boris remarks last night were disgraceful or not and let Big G point to other remarks Boris said another time as answer to prove this point. Simples.

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

This morning on the radio I heard a midwife talking about the Shrewsbury maternity issues refer to the care of babies and birthing persons.

Many years ago, on some pharmaceutical errand, I went into the maternity unit of the hospital where I was working and heard a stern female voice asking 'who has let that man into my unit?'

I gathered that fathers were allowed to visit their offspring and there were exceptions for 'approved' make doctors, but that was it.

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
32m
Things are changing quickly in Northern Europe.

On Monday, Finnish President Sauli Niinistö spoke to the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the the "principles and procedures involved" in the military alliance's acceptance of new members.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1509098932886028288

===

This would not be happening without Putin's massive strategically blunder. He has been the catalyst for the thing he says he doesn't want the most: NATO expansion.

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

The Tories cannot get away with a wholesale rewrite of history.

The vote to authorise British troops which took place in the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 was as follows:

Aye: 412, of which 254 Labour, 146 Conservative, 6 UUP, 5 DUP, 1 Independent Conservative
No: 149, of which 54 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP, 4 Plaid, 1 SDLP, 1 Conservative, 1 Independent Health Concern and 84 Labour rebels.
Abstentions 84, of which 17 Conservative.

The Conservatives were even more enthusiastic about the war than Labour. That is simply a statement of fact.

Charles Kennedy was pilloried by the right wing press, but he was the only party leader who had the genuine courage of his principles, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was also right.

Personally I may well have voted for the war still today, as without it Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Charles Kennedy opposed the war and fair enough many MPs did, not just LDs.

However Blair did not make the argument solely on removing Saddam, he made it on WMD to get Labour backbenchers on board and on that he lied. Yet despite that lie which took us into war he remained in power and thus set a precedent future PMs do not automatically need to resign if they lie either

So your point is? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the iraq war, you seem to imply that because one party lies, then it is OK for any party to lie and that no one should have to resign or take responsibility if they are caught in a lie. That is a pretty contemptible position, if I may say so.

Lies are not good politics, and if we create a political system that thinks its OK to lie with impunity, pretty soon you end up with Putinism.

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

The Tories cannot get away with a wholesale rewrite of history.

The vote to authorise British troops which took place in the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 was as follows:

Aye: 412, of which 254 Labour, 146 Conservative, 6 UUP, 5 DUP, 1 Independent Conservative
No: 149, of which 54 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP, 4 Plaid, 1 SDLP, 1 Conservative, 1 Independent Health Concern and 84 Labour rebels.
Abstentions 84, of which 17 Conservative.

The Conservatives were even more enthusiastic about the war than Labour. That is simply a statement of fact.

Charles Kennedy was pilloried by the right wing press, but he was the only party leader who had the genuine courage of his principles, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was also right.

Personally as a Tory I may well have voted for the war still today, as without it Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Charles Kennedy opposed the war and fair enough many MPs did, not just LDs.

However Blair did not make the argument solely on removing Saddam, he made it on WMD to get Labour backbenchers on board and on that he lied. Yet despite that lie which took us into war he remained in power and thus set a precedent future PMs do not automatically need to resign if they lie either

Didn't Eden lie when he said there was no collusion with Israel over Suez?

The point about our current PM is not that he lied to the House but that he routinely does so, and indeed, appears to have little concept of the need for accuracy or consistency.

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

This morning on the radio I heard a midwife talking about the Shrewsbury maternity issues refer to the care of babies and birthing persons.

Shocking. I think the only appropriate and rational response is to vote for a kleptocratic, bungling, divisive and shameless habitual liar otherwise the world will surely end.

Deleted. Vanilla strikes again!

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

The Tories cannot get away with a wholesale rewrite of history.

The vote to authorise British troops which took place in the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 was as follows:

Aye: 412, of which 254 Labour, 146 Conservative, 6 UUP, 5 DUP, 1 Independent Conservative
No: 149, of which 54 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP, 4 Plaid, 1 SDLP, 1 Conservative, 1 Independent Health Concern and 84 Labour rebels.
Abstentions 84, of which 17 Conservative.

The Conservatives were even more enthusiastic about the war than Labour. That is simply a statement of fact.

Charles Kennedy was pilloried by the right wing press, but he was the only party leader who had the genuine courage of his principles, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was also right.

Personally I may well have voted for the war still today, as without it Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Charles Kennedy opposed the war and fair enough many MPs did, not just LDs.

However Blair did not make the argument solely on removing Saddam, he made it on WMD to get Labour backbenchers on board and on that he lied. Yet despite that lie which took us into war he remained in power and thus set a precedent future PMs do not automatically need to resign if they lie either

So your point is? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the iraq war, you seem to imply that because one party lies, then it is OK for any party to lie and that no one should have to resign or take responsibility if they are caught in a lie. That is a pretty contemptible position, if I may say so.

Lies are not good politics, and if we create a political system that thinks its OK to lie with impunity, pretty soon you end up with Putinism.

Well it was Blair who set the precedent that PMs do not resign if they lie. Labour were happy to keep him in post so a bit rich and hypocritical of Labour supporters to demand Tories remove Boris now

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

Cicero said:

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

Taz said:

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Scott_xP said:

Labour’s @wesstreeting says Boris Johnson “knowingly lied to the country, to the house or commons and the Queen”.
But he says he’ll probably lead the Tories into the next election because “Tory MPs are complicit in it”
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1509068291683270662

Several PB Tories - @HYUFD being the leading one - simply refuse to engage on the issue that their party leader lies and lies and lies. Any party with basic morality and decency wold have removed him regardless of whether he is seen as an "election winner" or not.

Would any previous Tory leader have brazenly lied to parliament and said "what lies" despite the indisputable proof of their lies? "You're just anti-Tory" is the whine, but wold May have behaved like this? Cameron? Howard? Thatcher?

Previously you could argue that parties deserve to lose power because they have run out of ideas and have poor policies. I can't remember one like this that thinks the rule of law and the rules of parliament do not apply to them.

Of course Tony Blair lied to take us into war. Yet he remained PM and Labour leader for 4 years after the Iraq War

Would you like to address your leader lying to parliament?

Tony Blair lied to Parliament by saying Saddam Hussein had WMD as a reason for war.

The precedent that PMs do not resign automatically for lying was therefore set well before Boris

Nonsense. He either believed it at the time or he lied but we didn't know it.

Whereas Boris lying is known.

The Tory leader at the time was gung-ho for the war, and IIRC didn't need many excuses or justifications.

He did qualify that by saying it was on the back of the information presented to him by the Blair govt at the time.

Fair point. Charles Kennedy had more common sense.

That was Michael Howard

The Tories cannot get away with a wholesale rewrite of history.

The vote to authorise British troops which took place in the House of Commons on 18th March 2003 was as follows:

Aye: 412, of which 254 Labour, 146 Conservative, 6 UUP, 5 DUP, 1 Independent Conservative
No: 149, of which 54 Liberal Democrats, 5 SNP, 4 Plaid, 1 SDLP, 1 Conservative, 1 Independent Health Concern and 84 Labour rebels.
Abstentions 84, of which 17 Conservative.

The Conservatives were even more enthusiastic about the war than Labour. That is simply a statement of fact.

Charles Kennedy was pilloried by the right wing press, but he was the only party leader who had the genuine courage of his principles, and with the benefit of hindsight we can see that he was also right.

Personally I may well have voted for the war still today, as without it Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Charles Kennedy opposed the war and fair enough many MPs did, not just LDs.

However Blair did not make the argument solely on removing Saddam, he made it on WMD to get Labour backbenchers on board and on that he lied. Yet despite that lie which took us into war he remained in power and thus set a precedent future PMs do not automatically need to resign if they lie either

So your point is? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the iraq war, you seem to imply that because one party lies, then it is OK for any party to lie and that no one should have to resign or take responsibility if they are caught in a lie. That is a pretty contemptible position, if I may say so.

Lies are not good politics, and if we create a political system that thinks its OK to lie with impunity, pretty soon you end up with Putinism.

Well it was Blair who set the precedent that PMs do not resign if they lie. Labour were happy to keep him in post so a bit rich and hypocritical of Labour supporters to demand Tories remove Boris now

I hold no brief for Blair, and have never voted Labour, but I do not beleive that he beleived he was lying. Indeed in his reponse to the Chilcot inquiry he says: "I did not mislead this country. I made the decision in good faith and I believe it is better we took that decision. I acknowledge the mistakes and accept responsibility for them".

Unfortunately I have much less confidence about the current Conservative government.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MoonRabbit said:

glw said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Kay Burley this morning asks Wes Streeting is is right when men go into hospital they are asked if they are pregnant

This morning on the radio I heard a midwife talking about the Shrewsbury maternity issues refer to the care of babies and birthing persons.

The awful mess the conservatives have got into over this is trying to play it all ways at the same time - the bestest friend to all trans people going through difficult times, or the remarks of Boris last night trying to score party political points.

The Tories stupid approach on trans is trying to be two things at the same time.

We simply need to ask Big G if Boris remarks last night were disgraceful or not and let Big G point to other remarks Boris said another time as answer to prove this point. Simples.

To be honest I have not heard what Boris said last night but this is a problem which Starmer tried to address and immediately fell out with JK Rowling and of course Rosie Duffield

It is a complex subject but the issues is dividing labour and many across the political divide

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-60188577

Generally voters think people should be able to change their sex and self identify as a gender different to the one they were born with.

However they also think a doctor's consent is needed before sex is changed and that transgender women should not compete in womens' sports

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights

Alphabet_Soup said:

rottenborough said:

interesting thread on future of western military spending. Perhaps Sunak was right to hold off additional billions at this time?


Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
This might be counter-intuitive, but the mediocre (to be kind) performance of the Russian military in Kyiv means that Europe and the USA do not need to rush out and spend billions more right away on their militaries. It means they have a window to plan for the future.

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1508888821005529094

I'd have thought re-armament would be high on Putin's agenda. How long did it take his mentor? Six years, including reoccupation of the Rhineland, which we were content to overlook at the time.

As Putin no doubt says to his well-wishers, "I am in blood stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er."

There are so many angles to this. Firstly, military equipment nowadays is much more complex than it was eighty years ago, and supply chains are massive and often international - so re-equipping can be expensive and difficult.

On the other hand, much of Russia's problems seem to come from doctrine, leadership and training. This is easier to fix - as Ukraine has done after they solidly lost in 2014.

I do wonder how much Russia's military training and setup is actually a result of a system that does not want a military that can challenge the leadership? If that's the case, it won't change, and the military will be fighting with one hand behind its back whatever equipment they have.

What Russia needs to do is look at Ukraine: how have they gone from being beaten eight years ago, to a much better position today? Some of it is western equipment, but much of it will be training and doctrinal changes within the government and military.

rottenborough said:

interesting thread on future of western military spending. Perhaps Sunak was right to hold off additional billions at this time?


Phillips P. OBrien
@PhillipsPOBrien
This might be counter-intuitive, but the mediocre (to be kind) performance of the Russian military in Kyiv means that Europe and the USA do not need to rush out and spend billions more right away on their militaries. It means they have a window to plan for the future.

https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1508888821005529094

I think if the west 'put its hand in its pocked' now, big style, and gave the Ukrainians all they could use, then there is enough of a chance that Putin would fall, and we could live with much lower military speeding for a generation.

However that would not suit the big military contractors so not going to happen.