Gardenwalker said:

CarlottaVance said:

Lead on STV news:

ICYMI - Exclusive -STV News has learned double rapist Adam Graham, who was sent to Cornton Vale prison after identifying as a woman, attended a beauty course at a Ayrshire College while awaiting trial for the attacks - taking classes alongside young girls.

https://twitter.com/gordonchree/status/1618675169509130242

Is there any evidence that the SNP (or Nicola herself) is taking a hit in the polls?

She’s lost the votes of PBers living in *checks notes* England, Wales and the Channel Islands for sure.

Richard_Tyndall said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Hang on. Most of that wealth you are talking about came about entirely outside of the expectations of the Governments of the last 30 or 40 years - indeed to some extent in spite of their efforts or at least only indirectly from them screwing up. If anything has gone wrong it is the growth in the size of the state and Government spending so blaming the pensioners for something that has been entirely out of their hands and creating this artificial conflict between young and old simply because it suits your own bigoted ideas is utter bollocks.

And as someone has pointed out, that wealth then gets transferred to the young (who again I should point out will very soon be old) when the current crop of pensioners die.

Rather than looking avariciously at an income source to prop up your broken system maybe you should look at fixing the system instead.

Hold on.

A very large part of the growth in wealth has manifest as house price inflation. Not really to do with the efforts of anyone and driven by government "build not enough houses" policy.

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

https://www.ft.com/content/63682089-9d1a-4419-ae14-fa966370ee34

Under the Levido plan, Sunak will focus on his five promises during 2023, most of which should be achievable because of the current trajectory of the economy. Stopping small boats could prove to be the most difficult to attain.

Then, according to Tory MPs briefed by chancellor Jeremy Hunt, the spring Budget of 2024 will be the pivotal moment in this parliament, when growth returns and tax cuts become possible.

The template for the strategy is John Major’s unlikely Tory election victory in 1992, when he persuaded voters that the UK was “on the right track”, even though the party appeared exhausted after 13 years in power.

Yup but it led to an even bigger disaster later on. Take the pain... accept your time is up ... Labour will be fucking it up before you can say Gordon Brown.

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

The good news is that the Tories will be destroyed at the next election, and HYUFD will be reduced to weeping tears of battery acid (or whatever androids do when dejected).

The bad news is there is still TWO MORE YEARS of their malign, corrupt, incompetent and cruel reign.

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

Most people have home owning parents though.

The average person is more likely to inherit a house from their parents than become a high earner

As I said, a lack of social mobility is debilitating for economic growth.

Mexicanpete said:

...

squareroot2 said:

It's going to be a terrible night for the Tories. Repeat ad nauseum until GE day....

Do you honestly believe, as we write, they don't deserve to be under scrutiny for the personal behaviour of a number of cabinet and senior party members? In terms of political policy too, you have the likes of Braverman rowing back on earlier pledges (for example, over Windrush) to placate the swivel-eyed contingent.

If your party, for whom you are shedding your tear learned to behave themselves, adopt moderate and civil policy and encouraged Sunak to dispose of the b****** contingent from cabinet their polling would most likely be more satisfactory for supporters like yourself.

No. They are under scrutiny and rightly so. Their time is up. They need to accept that they are fucked and go for damage limitation.

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

The good news is that the Tories will be destroyed at the next election, and HYUFD will be reduced to weeping tears of battery acid (or whatever androids do when dejected).

The bad news is there is still TWO MORE YEARS of their malign, corrupt, incompetent and cruel reign.

We have been in power for 13 consecutive years already, by the next general we will have been in power longer than any party consecutively in the last 100 years bar the 1979 to 1997 Tory government.

Labour then have to deal with the economy. I certainly won't be weeping if we lose, more a shrug shoulders then into opposition and attack the government

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

Most people have home owning parents though.

The average person is more likely to inherit a house from their parents than become a high earner

You get an allowance of £23k, then after that, the average person's parents is more likely to have their home sold or have a lien put on it to pay their care costs.

Fewer people are going to inherit than they think.

Phil said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Up until now, the answer from ministers has been that it is not responsible for SPS operational matters on where prisoners are placed within the prison estate but the FM has now been able to reveal that "this prisoner" will not be incarcerated in Cornton Vale. #FMQs

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1618581083989377025

Of course, under Scottish Prison Guidelines since 2014they still could be….and who is politically responsible for those guidelines?

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Make no mistake. This is a comprehensive defeat and singular humiliation for Sturgeon. All that "criminals won't try to get into female spaces", all that "most marginalised people", all that "be kind and respect a self declared identity"
That house of cards just utterly collapsed

https://twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1618591781410729989

Is it though? I haven't followed this very closely, but hasn't someone (apparently) trying to abuse self-ID to get sent to a women's prison just been denied that opportunity?

(Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to show (i) that yes, some people will try to take the piss, but (ii) that won't be permitted)

I am afraid that neither Yvette Cooper nor Ms Sturgeon understand the consequences of the current law, the Haldane judgment or what the GRR Bill will mean. This case exemplifies all the issues which equality lawyers and others have been raising. It is understandable that Cooper does not want to make Labour seem like a party on the side of rapists and Sturgeon wants to avoid bad publicity. But this case has blown all the arguments for the GRR Bill - in its current form - straight out of the water.

As for the arguments that risk assessment by the prison service will solve all the issues, that doesn't work either for some pretty obvious reasons.

I will do a separate post explaining why because there is so much misunderstanding of what the law actually says.

(If you're very lucky - 🤭 - I may even do it as a header.)

Would I be right in thinking that, the moment the pretendy rapist woman in this case gets his hands on some kind of official gender recognition document, he can simply use human rights legislation to force the Scottish authorities to put him in a women's jail? You'll know the ins and outs both of what existing gender recognition legislation, and the proposed Scottish reforms, imply than I do: if the law insists that this man is now a woman then, presumably, he cannot continue to be held in a men's prison?

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

The Home Office has just issued updated guidance on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

Previously I believe the answer was that someone with a GRC would by default be housed in the women’s estate, but that a risk assessment would be applied that would see them sent elsewhere if they were deemed a risk to women - notably anyone convicted them or previously of sexual offenses would fall under this category IIRC. (NB, there is a problem with this system around disclosure of trans status where I do agree with Cyclefree that is seems there is a gap that could be abused by individuals with the goal of gaining access to the womens estate, due to the legal restrictions placed how knowledge of someone’s trans status could be communicated within the system without their consent.)

The previous guidance is here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Presumably an updated version will be forthcoming.

Thanks.

However, what has not been factored in is the effect of the Haldane judgment. It is a Scottish judgment so the question of whether and how it applies in E&W is unclear (to me anyway). But the same arguments could be used by someone in E&W and if the result is the same - at the SC level - then all these policies are worthless and will need rewriting.

At that point a man with a GRC will legally be a female and even if he is the most violent rapist around cannot legally be held outside a man's prison. He could of course be put in solitary confinement or in a special wing. But then female warders could be put at risk. Or we could have male warders protecting male rapist prisoners with a certificate saying that they are a woman in a specially segregated prison wing.

What could we call such wings? How about ... ooh I dunno..... a Men's Prison (GRC wing)?

All this arises from the nonsense of saying that people should be allowed to change gender on their say-so with no objective or verifiable criteria or checks for doing so.

As @Malmesbury put it in another context - "Every time I hear someone say "Why introduce checks? It's all working fine", I recount the spoons."

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

The good news is that the Tories will be destroyed at the next election, and HYUFD will be reduced to weeping tears of battery acid (or whatever androids do when dejected).

The bad news is there is still TWO MORE YEARS of their malign, corrupt, incompetent and cruel reign.

We have been in power for 13 consecutive years already, by the next general we will have been in power longer than any party consecutively in the last 100 years bar the 1979 to 1997 Tory government.

Labour then have to deal with the economy. I certainly won't be weeping if we lose, more a shrug shoulders then into opposition and attack the government

Yes I think a 2024 GE win is a poison chalice.

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

pigeon said:

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

This is my problem with a lot of the discourse on the subject (not specifically your comment) - plenty of people just think it shouldn't go ahead because a very small number of particularly maladjusted people might misuse it.

It's absolutely right to be concerned about these issues and how to deal with and safeguard against them, but for many people it seems the fact there's even any potential for any misuse at all is more than enough reason for it not to go ahead.

Problem is if you applied that logic to all sorts of other things then it would quickly result in total paralysis and/or all sorts of crazy unreasonable situations.

2 points:-

1. It is not just the number of people who might misuse it which is relevant. But the consequences of a change in the law which everyone will have to comply with regardless of whether or not they ever encounter a trans person, genuine or not.

2. One of those consequences is that single sex exemptions and single sex associations will no longer be available and women's ability to bring equal pay claims will be curtailed. That is a loss of facilities and rights which a lot of women will face, far in excess of the numbers who might misuse the law. In short, the legal and practical impact are the key issues not just the numbers.

One further point: it is a heroic assumption to say that the numbers will be small. If you can get lots of advantages and all you have to do is sign a declaration with no proof needed whatsoever, why wouldn't lots of people take advantage of this? What, in fact, are the downsides of doing so?

These are issues that already exist though do they not? And on a UK-wide basis, regardless of the new legislation?

I accept the argument the Scottish approach forces confrontation of the issues on a faster timescale than might otherwise have been the case, but it's not like it represents a total reversal of the direction of the travel that was happening anyway.

I'm not convinced its a heroic assumption to say that the numbers of people misusing it will be small. It seems more like a heroic assumption to essentially infer that the whole thing is there basically solely for the preserve of men who want a novel way of sexually abusing women. There's no doubt that it can be misused if people so choose, which is why improving the safeguarding seems like an important part of the issue to me. And there's no doubt that the issue as a whole raises deep and difficult questions for our society as a whole.

All I'm saying is that you can't skip over those issues or hide from them just by using specific individual cases to make the case that no-one should be allowed to do it.

bigjohnowls said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

The good news is that the Tories will be destroyed at the next election, and HYUFD will be reduced to weeping tears of battery acid (or whatever androids do when dejected).

The bad news is there is still TWO MORE YEARS of their malign, corrupt, incompetent and cruel reign.

We have been in power for 13 consecutive years already, by the next general we will have been in power longer than any party consecutively in the last 100 years bar the 1979 to 1997 Tory government.

Labour then have to deal with the economy. I certainly won't be weeping if we lose, more a shrug shoulders then into opposition and attack the government

Yes I think a 2024 GE win is a poison chalice.

People say that about a lot of elections. Maybe it is even true sometimes. But it is always better to win than not.

You never know, you might be able to handle it well after all, for example.

@nickeardleybbc: RT @bbcquestiontime: “I do think it’s unsustainable for a minister to stay in his post while this investigation is going on”

The Conser… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618707938461327371

kinabalu said:

jamesdoyle said:

Scott_xP said:

@Mollie_Malone1: RT @itssophiemorris: A surprise guest on @SkyNews’ NHS phone in this afternoon. Sir Rod Stewart says that "in all my years living in thi… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618650716687728640

If the Tories have lost Rod Stewart, it really is all over.

Yep it's true, he was really slagging off the Tories - "they are failing, they are failing ..."

Man who can't sing can't do politics either....well thats a surprise

...

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

He's a member of the Conservative Party, which exists only to defend the interests of the already wealthy and to redistribute money upwards. It's all they believe in and all they are good for.

I’m not sure that’s always been the way.

There was a time when the Tories extended their sympathies to the aspirant class, and even to some extent the broad swathe of middle Britain.

That ended some time ago, though.

Indeed. Self-reliance, hard work and the fruits thereof - were the kind of rhetorical arguments that I recall from the Thatcher years - by definition when they appealed most to the aspirants and middle Britain. At a time when houses cost far, far less in terms of salaries.

I can't equate this modern Tory sitting around waiting for mummy and daddy to die with the sort of self-respect that was a key part of Mrs T's Zeitgeist.

The big age of social mobility was about 1950 to 1990 as more white collar jobs were created to replace blue collar jobs lost. I doubt we will ever see that again.

I of course support more grammar schools which offered the best ladder to the upper middle class from the lower middle and working class but few on here do and of course even then most will not get there.

Council House sales also spread wealth under Thatcher, she just needed to use more of the sale proceeds to build new social housing

Where might I find this utopian paradise of grazing unicorns and rivers of bullsh1t of which you write?

solarflare said:

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

pigeon said:

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

This is my problem with a lot of the discourse on the subject (not specifically your comment) - plenty of people just think it shouldn't go ahead because a very small number of particularly maladjusted people might misuse it.

It's absolutely right to be concerned about these issues and how to deal with and safeguard against them, but for many people it seems the fact there's even any potential for any misuse at all is more than enough reason for it not to go ahead.

Problem is if you applied that logic to all sorts of other things then it would quickly result in total paralysis and/or all sorts of crazy unreasonable situations.

2 points:-

1. It is not just the number of people who might misuse it which is relevant. But the consequences of a change in the law which everyone will have to comply with regardless of whether or not they ever encounter a trans person, genuine or not.

2. One of those consequences is that single sex exemptions and single sex associations will no longer be available and women's ability to bring equal pay claims will be curtailed. That is a loss of facilities and rights which a lot of women will face, far in excess of the numbers who might misuse the law. In short, the legal and practical impact are the key issues not just the numbers.

One further point: it is a heroic assumption to say that the numbers will be small. If you can get lots of advantages and all you have to do is sign a declaration with no proof needed whatsoever, why wouldn't lots of people take advantage of this? What, in fact, are the downsides of doing so?

These are issues that already exist though do they not? And on a UK-wide basis, regardless of the new legislation?

I accept the argument the Scottish approach forces confrontation of the issues on a faster timescale than might otherwise have been the case, but it's not like it represents a total reversal of the direction of the travel that was happening anyway.

I'm not convinced its a heroic assumption to say that the numbers of people misusing it will be small. It seems more like a heroic assumption to essentially infer that the whole thing is there basically solely for the preserve of men who want a novel way of sexually abusing women. There's no doubt that it can be misused if people so choose, which is why improving the safeguarding seems like an important part of the issue to me. And there's no doubt that the issue as a whole raises deep and difficult questions for our society as a whole.

All I'm saying is that you can't skip over those issues or hide from them just by using specific individual cases to make the case that no-one should be allowed to do it.

Care to put a number on the number of women abused by sexual predators misusing it before you say enough is enough?

I have a couple of trans friends and quite comfortable with them. Happy not to misgender them, happy to call them by their chosen names. Happy to support them living as a women. Happy to support them going preop into women only safe spaces.....absolutely not and not because I think they are actually a danger but because it would make already vulnerable women feel more vulnerable.

I also have no doubt that men who don't actually see themselves as in the wrong bodies will use it to access these safe spaces with gusto.

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

Most people have home owning parents though.

The average person is more likely to inherit a house from their parents than become a high earner

You get an allowance of £23k, then after that, the average person's parents is more likely to have their home sold or have a lien put on it to pay their care costs.

Fewer people are going to inherit than they think.

Only about 25% will need social care for dementia etc, certainly residential social care. Most will either avoid dementia or die beforehand

25%... now.

With the spiralling costs of healthcare and an ever increasing number of people living longer, I reckon that figure will be closer to 50% by the time the boomers start dying off en masse in their late 80s and 90s.

As I say, far fewer people are going to inherit their parents wealth than they think.

Life expectancy fell last year, it didn't rise.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england

The government may still pass into law its £86k care cap anyway and of course there is equity release, lifetime gifts etc not just inheritance at death

Foxy said:

kyf_100 said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

pigeon said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

The median age of the average voter is now about 50 of course

The median potential voter or the median voting voter?

The latter. I occasionally reference the following research undertaken after the 2017 GE:

https://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2019/05/21/the-rise-of-the-grey-vote/

Which is worth reading, although here's the excerpt explaining the relevant conclusion:

In 2017, our analysis of the BES data suggests that turnout among over 55s was 83.35%, compared to 58.15% of those under 55. Likewise, turnout was 84.34% vs. 63.06% for over and under 65s respectively. Combining these BES estimates of turnout with LFS estimates of nationality and ONS population estimates, we arrive at the following figures: the over 55s constituted 48.35% of the voting public in 2017, and the over 65s, 30.27%. If we assume that both turnout and the proportion of those disenfranchised due to their nationality remain constant, over 55s will constitute over half of the voting public by 2020 as a result of projected demographic change.

The grey vote is so huge, and contains so many outright homeowners, expectant heirs to property windfalls, and those already in receipt of state pensions or expecting to be so in the near future, that nobody will dare piss them off when it comes to their core interests: the triple lock, keeping house prices buoyant (if necessary through market rigging mechanisms, such as help to buy and refusing to challenge Nimbyism,) and prioritising the taxation of incomes over that of assets and estates.

This, in a nutshell, is why Britain is terminally screwed. Robbed of the ability to tax the old more, all the Government can do to pay for their ever-growing numbers and demands is to tax everyone else completely into the ground. The irony of all this is that 19th century theorists once postulated that democracy could never last for very long, because the great mass of the poor would soon learn to vote to help themselves to all the wealth of the rich, precipitating social collapse. They never anticipated that a great mass of wealthy codgers would actually destroy the state by helping themselves to the wages of their children and grandchildren. But here we are.

Their children and grandchildren will inherit more than any generation before them however

Many people don’t have wealthy parents.

I know that’s difficult for you to compute, though, as it appears to be outside the field of your large language model.

Most people have home owning parents though.

The average person is more likely to inherit a house from their parents than become a high earner

You get an allowance of £23k, then after that, the average person's parents is more likely to have their home sold or have a lien put on it to pay their care costs.

Fewer people are going to inherit than they think.

I think that we need to encourage wealth redistribution by means of inheritance tax. Such a system was an effective way of breaking up the aristocratic estates of Britain and Ireland in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. It needs updating to make it harder to dodge.

I rather like the idea of taxing inheritance at the recipient, perhaps spread over 2 or 3 years, as income or as CGT. This would encourage wider distribution within families. Income tax on very large inheritances would be redistributive via the tax system.

Except 2/3 of the adult population own property, only about 1% of the population had aristocratic estates.

Maggie may have counted on my vote in the past, but..
(apols if someone has already appropriated this clunkingly obvious pun)

Daveyboy1961 said:

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

@nickeardleybbc: RT @bbcquestiontime: “I do think it’s unsustainable for a minister to stay in his post while this investigation is going on”

The Conser… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618707938461327371

He's minister without portfolio and only in the Cabinet as a sinecure for the Chair of the party, (rather than a jack of all trades minister without portfolio) it's not as though the investigation is interferring with his government duties. It's only a political cost to him standing down.

Am I right in thinking that Chairman of the Party Salary is paid by the Party anyway?

In fairness I don't know that, and therefore whether he actually collects a Cabinet Member level salary from the state as well, so it may be they do not individually benefit - but its still a pointless Cabinet position, solely due to his party chair role, and hardly necessary (whereas the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for instance, might actually do something).

solarflare said:

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

pigeon said:

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

This is my problem with a lot of the discourse on the subject (not specifically your comment) - plenty of people just think it shouldn't go ahead because a very small number of particularly maladjusted people might misuse it.

It's absolutely right to be concerned about these issues and how to deal with and safeguard against them, but for many people it seems the fact there's even any potential for any misuse at all is more than enough reason for it not to go ahead.

Problem is if you applied that logic to all sorts of other things then it would quickly result in total paralysis and/or all sorts of crazy unreasonable situations.

2 points:-

1. It is not just the number of people who might misuse it which is relevant. But the consequences of a change in the law which everyone will have to comply with regardless of whether or not they ever encounter a trans person, genuine or not.

2. One of those consequences is that single sex exemptions and single sex associations will no longer be available and women's ability to bring equal pay claims will be curtailed. That is a loss of facilities and rights which a lot of women will face, far in excess of the numbers who might misuse the law. In short, the legal and practical impact are the key issues not just the numbers.

One further point: it is a heroic assumption to say that the numbers will be small. If you can get lots of advantages and all you have to do is sign a declaration with no proof needed whatsoever, why wouldn't lots of people take advantage of this? What, in fact, are the downsides of doing so?

These are issues that already exist though do they not? And on a UK-wide basis, regardless of the new legislation?

I accept the argument the Scottish approach forces confrontation of the issues on a faster timescale than might otherwise have been the case, but it's not like it represents a total reversal of the direction of the travel that was happening anyway.

I'm not convinced its a heroic assumption to say that the numbers of people misusing it will be small. It seems more like a heroic assumption to essentially infer that the whole thing is there basically solely for the preserve of men who want a novel way of sexually abusing women. There's no doubt that it can be misused if people so choose, which is why improving the safeguarding seems like an important part of the issue to me. And there's no doubt that the issue as a whole raises deep and difficult questions for our society as a whole.

All I'm saying is that you can't skip over those issues or hide from them just by using specific individual cases to make the case that no-one should be allowed to do it.

Again, 3 points:-

1. I do not say that no-one should be allowed to change gender. I think only those who verifiably have gender dysphoria should be allowed to do so.

2. The position post-Haldane is different from what we thought it was. Pr-Haldane, you could have a GRC or fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" but your sex remained what it was at birth and, therefore, a service provider could keep you out on the grounds of your sex if this was proportionate and for a legitimate aim.

Now, if Haldane is upheld and the same reasoning adopted by the English courts, it is not simply your gender which has changed but your sex. So the service provider can no longer keep you out in the grounds of your sex. This means that single sex spaces will have to accommodate males ie people with a male body but with a piece of paper saying that they are a woman. Similarly, single sex (women only) associations will not be able to exclude a man at all.

This is a significant step change not just more of the same.

3. There are no safeguards at all. That is the whole point of self-ID. If you have safeguards you end up roughly somewhere where we are now. But the Scottish government fought ferociously to prevent all amendments introducing any or any effective safeguards. Indeed, one of the SNP MSPs sneeringly referred to safeguarding in Holyrood as no more than "middle class gate-keeping".

Gardenwalker said:

Pagan2 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Pagan2 said:

kinabalu said:

jamesdoyle said:

Scott_xP said:

@Mollie_Malone1: RT @itssophiemorris: A surprise guest on @SkyNews’ NHS phone in this afternoon. Sir Rod Stewart says that "in all my years living in thi… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1618650716687728640

If the Tories have lost Rod Stewart, it really is all over.

Yep it's true, he was really slagging off the Tories - "they are failing, they are failing ..."

Man who can't sing can't do politics either....well thats a surprise

Rod Stewart is (or perhaps was) actually a very good singer. Hard to remember sometimes through the hair and performative tartan.

Well that is an opinion I found him a grating singer and whenever played I couldn't wait to go out for a breath of fresh air....his voice was nails on a chalkboard to many

He modelled himself to some extent on Sam Cooke. If you listen for it, you can hear it. Perhaps try Cooke, as he doesn’t have Stewart’s rasp.

Perhaps his style is just not my musical tastes. Every single person I think dislikes the music of someone most people love. Just accept people have different tastes and people we love to listen to are not going to be someones cup of tea. I am sure there are bands I love you would say the same to me about. I don't like his voice and I don't like his style of music simple as that

Cyclefree said:

Phil said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Up until now, the answer from ministers has been that it is not responsible for SPS operational matters on where prisoners are placed within the prison estate but the FM has now been able to reveal that "this prisoner" will not be incarcerated in Cornton Vale. #FMQs

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1618581083989377025

Of course, under Scottish Prison Guidelines since 2014they still could be….and who is politically responsible for those guidelines?

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Make no mistake. This is a comprehensive defeat and singular humiliation for Sturgeon. All that "criminals won't try to get into female spaces", all that "most marginalised people", all that "be kind and respect a self declared identity"
That house of cards just utterly collapsed

https://twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1618591781410729989

Is it though? I haven't followed this very closely, but hasn't someone (apparently) trying to abuse self-ID to get sent to a women's prison just been denied that opportunity?

(Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to show (i) that yes, some people will try to take the piss, but (ii) that won't be permitted)

I am afraid that neither Yvette Cooper nor Ms Sturgeon understand the consequences of the current law, the Haldane judgment or what the GRR Bill will mean. This case exemplifies all the issues which equality lawyers and others have been raising. It is understandable that Cooper does not want to make Labour seem like a party on the side of rapists and Sturgeon wants to avoid bad publicity. But this case has blown all the arguments for the GRR Bill - in its current form - straight out of the water.

As for the arguments that risk assessment by the prison service will solve all the issues, that doesn't work either for some pretty obvious reasons.

I will do a separate post explaining why because there is so much misunderstanding of what the law actually says.

(If you're very lucky - 🤭 - I may even do it as a header.)

Would I be right in thinking that, the moment the pretendy rapist woman in this case gets his hands on some kind of official gender recognition document, he can simply use human rights legislation to force the Scottish authorities to put him in a women's jail? You'll know the ins and outs both of what existing gender recognition legislation, and the proposed Scottish reforms, imply than I do: if the law insists that this man is now a woman then, presumably, he cannot continue to be held in a men's prison?

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

The Home Office has just issued updated guidance on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

Previously I believe the answer was that someone with a GRC would by default be housed in the women’s estate, but that a risk assessment would be applied that would see them sent elsewhere if they were deemed a risk to women - notably anyone convicted them or previously of sexual offenses would fall under this category IIRC. (NB, there is a problem with this system around disclosure of trans status where I do agree with Cyclefree that is seems there is a gap that could be abused by individuals with the goal of gaining access to the womens estate, due to the legal restrictions placed how knowledge of someone’s trans status could be communicated within the system without their consent.)

The previous guidance is here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Presumably an updated version will be forthcoming.

Thanks.

However, what has not been factored in is the effect of the Haldane judgment. It is a Scottish judgment so the question of whether and how it applies in E&W is unclear (to me anyway). But the same arguments could be used by someone in E&W and if the result is the same - at the SC level - then all these policies are worthless and will need rewriting.

At that point a man with a GRC will legally be a female and even if he is the most violent rapist around cannot legally be held outside a man's prison. He could of course be put in solitary confinement or in a special wing. But then female warders could be put at risk. Or we could have male warders protecting male rapist prisoners with a certificate saying that they are a woman in a specially segregated prison wing.

What could we call such wings? How about ... ooh I dunno..... a Men's Prison (GRC wing)?

All this arises from the nonsense of saying that people should be allowed to change gender on their say-so with no objective or verifiable criteria or checks for doing so.

As @Malmesbury put it in another context - "Every time I hear someone say "Why introduce checks? It's all working fine", I recount the spoons."

I suspect if the men who intend to abuse the system by obtaining GRCs for their own ends found themselves locked up elsewhere every time because the prison service had access to that information as of right, the number of people trying that on would rapidly trend towards zero.

Which would mean that those who wanted a GRC could get one without any of this being a problem.

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

pigeon said:

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

This is my problem with a lot of the discourse on the subject (not specifically your comment) - plenty of people just think it shouldn't go ahead because a very small number of particularly maladjusted people might misuse it.

It's absolutely right to be concerned about these issues and how to deal with and safeguard against them, but for many people it seems the fact there's even any potential for any misuse at all is more than enough reason for it not to go ahead.

Problem is if you applied that logic to all sorts of other things then it would quickly result in total paralysis and/or all sorts of crazy unreasonable situations.

2 points:-

1. It is not just the number of people who might misuse it which is relevant. But the consequences of a change in the law which everyone will have to comply with regardless of whether or not they ever encounter a trans person, genuine or not.

2. One of those consequences is that single sex exemptions and single sex associations will no longer be available and women's ability to bring equal pay claims will be curtailed. That is a loss of facilities and rights which a lot of women will face, far in excess of the numbers who might misuse the law. In short, the legal and practical impact are the key issues not just the numbers.

One further point: it is a heroic assumption to say that the numbers will be small. If you can get lots of advantages and all you have to do is sign a declaration with no proof needed whatsoever, why wouldn't lots of people take advantage of this? What, in fact, are the downsides of doing so?

These are issues that already exist though do they not? And on a UK-wide basis, regardless of the new legislation?

I accept the argument the Scottish approach forces confrontation of the issues on a faster timescale than might otherwise have been the case, but it's not like it represents a total reversal of the direction of the travel that was happening anyway.

I'm not convinced its a heroic assumption to say that the numbers of people misusing it will be small. It seems more like a heroic assumption to essentially infer that the whole thing is there basically solely for the preserve of men who want a novel way of sexually abusing women. There's no doubt that it can be misused if people so choose, which is why improving the safeguarding seems like an important part of the issue to me. And there's no doubt that the issue as a whole raises deep and difficult questions for our society as a whole.

All I'm saying is that you can't skip over those issues or hide from them just by using specific individual cases to make the case that no-one should be allowed to do it.

Again, 3 points:-

1. I do not say that no-one should be allowed to change gender. I think only those who verifiably have gender dysphoria should be allowed to do so.

2. The position post-Haldane is different from what we thought it was. Pr-Haldane, you could have a GRC or fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" but your sex remained what it was at birth and, therefore, a service provider could keep you out on the grounds of your sex if this was proportionate and for a legitimate aim.

Now, if Haldane is upheld and the same reasoning adopted by the English courts, it is not simply your gender which has changed but your sex. So the service provider can no longer keep you out in the grounds of your sex. This means that single sex spaces will have to accommodate males ie people with a male body but with a piece of paper saying that they are a woman. Similarly, single sex (women only) association will not be able to exclude a man at all.

This is a significant step change not just more of the same.

3. There are no safeguards at all. That is the whole point of self-ID. If you have safeguards you end up roughly somewhere where we are now. But the Scottish government fought ferociously to prevent all amendments introducing any or any effective safeguards. Indeed, one of the SNP MSPs sneeringly referred to safeguarding in Holyrood as no more than "middle class gate-keeping".

I have kept out of your debate regarding transgender issues, not least because I have no understanding of the chemistry of the transgender mind. I understand the biology nonetheless and Adam Graham has focused the mind on the self-affirmation absurdity of the SNP's transgender rights policy.

Theuniondivvie said:

Maggie may have counted on my vote in the past, but..
(apols if someone has already appropriated this clunkingly obvious pun)

Wake up, Maggie, I think I’ve got something to say to you.
Your party’s full of shysters who take us for a pack of fools.
I know you won’t be amused.
But I think we’re being used!
Oh Maggie, I wish I’d never voted for any of them.
They’ve taxed us till the pips wont squeak
And pander to the Brexity freaks.
They’ve broke my heart, and it’s time give Keir a go.

Phil said:

Cyclefree said:

Phil said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Up until now, the answer from ministers has been that it is not responsible for SPS operational matters on where prisoners are placed within the prison estate but the FM has now been able to reveal that "this prisoner" will not be incarcerated in Cornton Vale. #FMQs

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1618581083989377025

Of course, under Scottish Prison Guidelines since 2014they still could be….and who is politically responsible for those guidelines?

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Make no mistake. This is a comprehensive defeat and singular humiliation for Sturgeon. All that "criminals won't try to get into female spaces", all that "most marginalised people", all that "be kind and respect a self declared identity"
That house of cards just utterly collapsed

https://twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1618591781410729989

Is it though? I haven't followed this very closely, but hasn't someone (apparently) trying to abuse self-ID to get sent to a women's prison just been denied that opportunity?

(Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to show (i) that yes, some people will try to take the piss, but (ii) that won't be permitted)

I am afraid that neither Yvette Cooper nor Ms Sturgeon understand the consequences of the current law, the Haldane judgment or what the GRR Bill will mean. This case exemplifies all the issues which equality lawyers and others have been raising. It is understandable that Cooper does not want to make Labour seem like a party on the side of rapists and Sturgeon wants to avoid bad publicity. But this case has blown all the arguments for the GRR Bill - in its current form - straight out of the water.

As for the arguments that risk assessment by the prison service will solve all the issues, that doesn't work either for some pretty obvious reasons.

I will do a separate post explaining why because there is so much misunderstanding of what the law actually says.

(If you're very lucky - 🤭 - I may even do it as a header.)

Would I be right in thinking that, the moment the pretendy rapist woman in this case gets his hands on some kind of official gender recognition document, he can simply use human rights legislation to force the Scottish authorities to put him in a women's jail? You'll know the ins and outs both of what existing gender recognition legislation, and the proposed Scottish reforms, imply than I do: if the law insists that this man is now a woman then, presumably, he cannot continue to be held in a men's prison?

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

The Home Office has just issued updated guidance on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

Previously I believe the answer was that someone with a GRC would by default be housed in the women’s estate, but that a risk assessment would be applied that would see them sent elsewhere if they were deemed a risk to women - notably anyone convicted them or previously of sexual offenses would fall under this category IIRC. (NB, there is a problem with this system around disclosure of trans status where I do agree with Cyclefree that is seems there is a gap that could be abused by individuals with the goal of gaining access to the womens estate, due to the legal restrictions placed how knowledge of someone’s trans status could be communicated within the system without their consent.)

The previous guidance is here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Presumably an updated version will be forthcoming.

Thanks.

However, what has not been factored in is the effect of the Haldane judgment. It is a Scottish judgment so the question of whether and how it applies in E&W is unclear (to me anyway). But the same arguments could be used by someone in E&W and if the result is the same - at the SC level - then all these policies are worthless and will need rewriting.

At that point a man with a GRC will legally be a female and even if he is the most violent rapist around cannot legally be held outside a man's prison. He could of course be put in solitary confinement or in a special wing. But then female warders could be put at risk. Or we could have male warders protecting male rapist prisoners with a certificate saying that they are a woman in a specially segregated prison wing.

What could we call such wings? How about ... ooh I dunno..... a Men's Prison (GRC wing)?

All this arises from the nonsense of saying that people should be allowed to change gender on their say-so with no objective or verifiable criteria or checks for doing so.

As @Malmesbury put it in another context - "Every time I hear someone say "Why introduce checks? It's all working fine", I recount the spoons."

I suspect if the men who intend to abuse the system by obtaining GRCs for their own ends found themselves locked up elsewhere every time because the prison service had access to that information as of right, the number of people trying that on would rapidly trend towards zero.

Which would mean that those who wanted a GRC could get one without any of this being a problem.

While true that is not what the governement of scotland is proposing. You self id as a women you are a women thats what leads to hospitals saying you weren't raped as there was no males here which has already happened.

The problem with self ID is not mainly about genuine trans people. Sadly it is about men who really id as men but claim otherwise using self id as a means to get close to vulnerable women.

I have said blatantly on here if I ever got a prison sentence hell yes if I can I will self id and get sent to a prison for women. Not because in my case I wish to assault them but it will be easier than a mens prison.

Pagan2 said:

solarflare said:

Cyclefree said:

solarflare said:

pigeon said:

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

This is my problem with a lot of the discourse on the subject (not specifically your comment) - plenty of people just think it shouldn't go ahead because a very small number of particularly maladjusted people might misuse it.

It's absolutely right to be concerned about these issues and how to deal with and safeguard against them, but for many people it seems the fact there's even any potential for any misuse at all is more than enough reason for it not to go ahead.

Problem is if you applied that logic to all sorts of other things then it would quickly result in total paralysis and/or all sorts of crazy unreasonable situations.

2 points:-

1. It is not just the number of people who might misuse it which is relevant. But the consequences of a change in the law which everyone will have to comply with regardless of whether or not they ever encounter a trans person, genuine or not.

2. One of those consequences is that single sex exemptions and single sex associations will no longer be available and women's ability to bring equal pay claims will be curtailed. That is a loss of facilities and rights which a lot of women will face, far in excess of the numbers who might misuse the law. In short, the legal and practical impact are the key issues not just the numbers.

One further point: it is a heroic assumption to say that the numbers will be small. If you can get lots of advantages and all you have to do is sign a declaration with no proof needed whatsoever, why wouldn't lots of people take advantage of this? What, in fact, are the downsides of doing so?

These are issues that already exist though do they not? And on a UK-wide basis, regardless of the new legislation?

I accept the argument the Scottish approach forces confrontation of the issues on a faster timescale than might otherwise have been the case, but it's not like it represents a total reversal of the direction of the travel that was happening anyway.

I'm not convinced its a heroic assumption to say that the numbers of people misusing it will be small. It seems more like a heroic assumption to essentially infer that the whole thing is there basically solely for the preserve of men who want a novel way of sexually abusing women. There's no doubt that it can be misused if people so choose, which is why improving the safeguarding seems like an important part of the issue to me. And there's no doubt that the issue as a whole raises deep and difficult questions for our society as a whole.

All I'm saying is that you can't skip over those issues or hide from them just by using specific individual cases to make the case that no-one should be allowed to do it.

Care to put a number on the number of women abused by sexual predators misusing it before you say enough is enough?

I have a couple of trans friends and quite comfortable with them. Happy not to misgender them, happy to call them by their chosen names. Happy to support them living as a women. Happy to support them going preop into women only safe spaces.....absolutely not and not because I think they are actually a danger but because it would make already vulnerable women feel more vulnerable.

I also have no doubt that men who don't actually see themselves as in the wrong bodies will use it to access these safe spaces with gusto.

No. Because that's my whole point. You go down the route of we won't do a thing because one person might suffer or we will do a thing because it might stop one person suffering and you get into a whole world of pain very quickly.

I don't care to put a number on the number of women abused by sexual predators in the police before I say enough is enough and men simply aren't allowed to join the police. I don't care to put a number on the number of women groped or abused on public transport before I say enough is enough and men must be barred from travelling in the same carriages or vehicles as women. And so on and so forth. None of this means I accept or am happy about sexual abuse from police officers or men on public transport, but equally I have to take the view that the people who do these things are a minority of the male population. They are not representative of males as a whole. We cannot tar everyone with the same brush, no matter how high profile the individual instances may be.

Again, I'm not denying the fact that (a) self-ID poses complex and difficult questions for our society and (b) has the clear potential for misuse if safeguarding is inadequate. But equally I'm far from convinced from the idea that everyone who might self-ID is basically a rapist in waiting so we shouldn't bother to consider the idea at all.

On topic, I live in one of the first Red Wall seats to fall to the Tories in 2017. The MP is local. She has increased her majority at every GE since then.

However she will be out next time.

Why?

1. She's nice enough. But useless. Letters/emails go unanswered or you just get a boilerplate reply. She does not get involved in worthwhile local initiatives even when neighbouring Tory MPs do - and get some local credit for doing so. Husband is involved in a number of these and finds that her response is always to say "ooh yes, good idea" and then do the square root of fuck all. The contrast with the Tory MP in the next constituency let alone Tim Farron is not to her advantage. At all.

2. There is some money coming for the area but it is so slow that people will not see any visible improvement by the time of the next GE.

3. The local Tory councillors are a bunch of utterly useless tossers. Neither use nor ornament. (BTW I have been asked whether I want to be an independent councillor - there is a local grouping that wants to fire rockets up the arses of these people - and am thinking about it.) Who the hell is going to campaign for the Tories next time?

4. Some things have got worse. GP practices. Dentistry.

5. The local council reorganisation leaves this area out in the cold. Again.

6. This used to be an area where in some wards no-one bothered to campaign against the Tories. Now Labour have won loads in the local elections and come close in my ward, partly because those standing have been energetic and helpful. The Labour councillor in the local town is very good and sensible. So people look at him and think that Labour deserve a chance.

7. People gave Tories a chance in 2017. They've had 6 years. Even if they get another 2 years what have they got to show for it locally?

8. A sense of fairness in the sense of - it's time to give the other lot a go as this lot are exhausted/crooked/been here too long.

Pagan2 said:

Phil said:

Cyclefree said:

Phil said:

pigeon said:

Cyclefree said:

CarlottaVance said:

Up until now, the answer from ministers has been that it is not responsible for SPS operational matters on where prisoners are placed within the prison estate but the FM has now been able to reveal that "this prisoner" will not be incarcerated in Cornton Vale. #FMQs

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1618581083989377025

Of course, under Scottish Prison Guidelines since 2014they still could be….and who is politically responsible for those guidelines?

Selebian said:

CarlottaVance said:

Make no mistake. This is a comprehensive defeat and singular humiliation for Sturgeon. All that "criminals won't try to get into female spaces", all that "most marginalised people", all that "be kind and respect a self declared identity"
That house of cards just utterly collapsed

https://twitter.com/jebadoo2/status/1618591781410729989

Is it though? I haven't followed this very closely, but hasn't someone (apparently) trying to abuse self-ID to get sent to a women's prison just been denied that opportunity?

(Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to show (i) that yes, some people will try to take the piss, but (ii) that won't be permitted)

I am afraid that neither Yvette Cooper nor Ms Sturgeon understand the consequences of the current law, the Haldane judgment or what the GRR Bill will mean. This case exemplifies all the issues which equality lawyers and others have been raising. It is understandable that Cooper does not want to make Labour seem like a party on the side of rapists and Sturgeon wants to avoid bad publicity. But this case has blown all the arguments for the GRR Bill - in its current form - straight out of the water.

As for the arguments that risk assessment by the prison service will solve all the issues, that doesn't work either for some pretty obvious reasons.

I will do a separate post explaining why because there is so much misunderstanding of what the law actually says.

(If you're very lucky - 🤭 - I may even do it as a header.)

Would I be right in thinking that, the moment the pretendy rapist woman in this case gets his hands on some kind of official gender recognition document, he can simply use human rights legislation to force the Scottish authorities to put him in a women's jail? You'll know the ins and outs both of what existing gender recognition legislation, and the proposed Scottish reforms, imply than I do: if the law insists that this man is now a woman then, presumably, he cannot continue to be held in a men's prison?

Is this all going to end up with special jails having to be constructed for pretendy women, and in that case how are the genuine trans people going to be sorted out from the piss-takers?

The Home Office has just issued updated guidance on this: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

Previously I believe the answer was that someone with a GRC would by default be housed in the women’s estate, but that a risk assessment would be applied that would see them sent elsewhere if they were deemed a risk to women - notably anyone convicted them or previously of sexual offenses would fall under this category IIRC. (NB, there is a problem with this system around disclosure of trans status where I do agree with Cyclefree that is seems there is a gap that could be abused by individuals with the goal of gaining access to the womens estate, due to the legal restrictions placed how knowledge of someone’s trans status could be communicated within the system without their consent.)

The previous guidance is here:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/863610/transgender-pf.pdf

Presumably an updated version will be forthcoming.

Thanks.

However, what has not been factored in is the effect of the Haldane judgment. It is a Scottish judgment so the question of whether and how it applies in E&W is unclear (to me anyway). But the same arguments could be used by someone in E&W and if the result is the same - at the SC level - then all these policies are worthless and will need rewriting.

At that point a man with a GRC will legally be a female and even if he is the most violent rapist around cannot legally be held outside a man's prison. He could of course be put in solitary confinement or in a special wing. But then female warders could be put at risk. Or we could have male warders protecting male rapist prisoners with a certificate saying that they are a woman in a specially segregated prison wing.

What could we call such wings? How about ... ooh I dunno..... a Men's Prison (GRC wing)?

All this arises from the nonsense of saying that people should be allowed to change gender on their say-so with no objective or verifiable criteria or checks for doing so.

As @Malmesbury put it in another context - "Every time I hear someone say "Why introduce checks? It's all working fine", I recount the spoons."

I suspect if the men who intend to abuse the system by obtaining GRCs for their own ends found themselves locked up elsewhere every time because the prison service had access to that information as of right, the number of people trying that on would rapidly trend towards zero.

Which would mean that those who wanted a GRC could get one without any of this being a problem.

While true that is not what the governement of scotland is proposing. You self id as a women you are a women thats what leads to hospitals saying you weren't raped as there was no males here which has already happened.

The problem with self ID is not mainly about genuine trans people. Sadly it is about men who really id as men but claim otherwise using self id as a means to get close to vulnerable women.

I have said blatantly on here if I ever got a prison sentence hell yes if I can I will self id and get sent to a prison for women. Not because in my case I wish to assault them but it will be easier than a mens prison.

Have you got a source for a hospital "you weren't raped", the only thing I can find is a story told by Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne in the House of Lords, who I don't think can be trusted to get the details right.

Cyclefree said:

On topic, I live in one of the first Red Wall seats to fall to the Tories in 2017. The MP is local. She has increased her majority at every GE since then.

However she will be out next time.

Why?

1. She's nice enough. But useless. Letters/emails go unanswered or you just get a boilerplate reply. She does not get involved in worthwhile local initiatives even when neighbouring Tory MPs do - and get some local credit for doing so. Husband is involved in a number of these and finds that her response is always to say "ooh yes, good idea" and then do the square root of fuck all. The contrast with the Tory MP in the next constituency let alone Tim Farron is not to her advantage. At all.

2. There is some money coming for the area but it is so slow that people will not see any visible improvement by the time of the next GE.

3. The local Tory councillors are a bunch of utterly useless tossers. Neither use nor ornament. (BTW I have been asked whether I want to be an independent councillor - there is a local grouping that wants to fire rockets up the arses of these people - and am thinking about it.) Who the hell is going to campaign for the Tories next time?

4. Some things have got worse. GP practices. Dentistry.

5. The local council reorganisation leaves this area out in the cold. Again.

6. This used to be an area where in some wards no-one bothered to campaign against the Tories. Now Labour have won loads in the local elections and come close in my ward, partly because those standing have been energetic and helpful. The Labour councillor in the local town is very good and sensible. So people look at him and think that Labour deserve a chance.

7. People gave Tories a chance in 2017. They've had 6 years. Even if they get another 2 years what have they got to show for it locally?

8. A sense of fairness in the sense of - it's time to give the other lot a go as this lot are exhausted/crooked/been here too long.

What is notable about the Red Wall polling is that it is limited to seats where there will be the usual bounce for a newly elected incumbent MP, which in the case of a useless MP may still happen but be less than normal. But that bounce is already discounted in this polling. The 26% Labour lead shown by R&W is net of any newly elected incumbency effect.

Graphs from a single pollster are useful because they reveal trends regardless of any house effects. The trend in the R&W graph is interesting. There has been a slow but perceptible decline in Conservative support in the Red Wall seats from a level of 35% even in June, masked by a temporary implosion under Truss and an initial but only partial recovery under Sunak. Since November the slow but steady downward trend has continued, from 30% after the Autumn budget to 27% now.