HYUFD said:

Monksfield said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.

Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.

Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!

As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.

It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.

It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.

You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

That's all true.

But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.

Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.

The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.

Delivering Brexit was not 'a cult', it was what 17 million people and 52% of those who voted in 2016 (ie more than have ever voted Conservative or Labour since universal suffrage) voted for

1931 would like to have a word.

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Monksfield said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.

Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.

Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!

As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.

It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.

It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.

You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

That's all true.

But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.

Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.

The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.

"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.

If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.

Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic

Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.

I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.

viewcode said:

OldKingCole said:

viewcode said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

FF43 said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

I just can’t be arsed to talk about Trans AGAIN

I don't even understand why it's a political issue. It never used to be.

A group of marginal and vulnerable people mostly minding their own business have been caught up in other people's culture wars.

Very regrettably.

I think too there clearly are a rising number of people, particularly youngsters, that identify as Trans. Quite why this is is unclear, but it may well be like the rising recognition of neurodivergence over the last few decades. Was it always there and under recognised previously, or a genuine rise due to factors as yet unknown?

It used to be calling a tomboy / going through “a phase”. Most grew up to be well adjusted adults and live as happy lives as anyone else.

Teenagers have a lot of hormones and it takes a while for the body to process them. I worry that in pathologising uncertainty we are storing up trouble for the future

I agree with your second para but it implies that teenagers should be allowed to experiment without committing irreversible acts. That would in turn imply that the parents should not be informed, not that they should, yes?

No, what it means is it both teenagers and parents should be able to access sensible dispassionate advice.

And good morning, one, and all!

Good morning, sir. Hmmm. Sensible dispassionate advice on this subject does seem to be lacking, with both sides arriving with axe-grinding machines in tow. @StillWaters' point about pathologising uncertainty was valid, but since the only alternative would be *not* pathologising uncertainty and the only way to do that would be to not interfere, that only leaves us with "leave things alone and see what happens". Which, come to think of it, may be the "sensible dispassionate advice" you seek...

Thank you; there is a difference between leaving alone, and seeing what happens and sensible, dispassionate advice, but it’s a fine line and one very likely to be overtrodden.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

For those who love subtle, character based films, Extraction 2 is out.

Strangely, rather than philosophical debates on the nature of truth and Quantum Mechanics at a dinner party, this sequel concentrates on Chris Hemsworth killing *everyone*. Non stop.

War is the pursuit of philosophy by other means.

Ultima ratio regum

Which leads up to the Greatest Hamlet adaption ever

https://youtu.be/YNcN5f3vwro

“Stay thy hand, fair Prince”

“Who said I’m fair?”

"To be or not to be. Pause. Not to be." [big explosion].

[Charles Dance, into the uncaring darkness] "Hello! I just shot a man and I'm not sorry!"

Miklosvar said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Monksfield said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.

Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.

Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!

As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.

It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.

It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.

You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

That's all true.

But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.

Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.

The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.

"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.

If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.

Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic

Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.

No he would not. A sitting pm with his mind on the job is in a virtually impregnable position. You have to really work at it to get yourself borised or trussed.

Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan, Eden, Chamberlain, Lloyd George all beg to differ.

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.

I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.

I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...

Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.

When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.

In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.

Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.

But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.

Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.

It's probably sensible to concede:
- some rules put in place were a good idea
- some did more harm than good (were all the school closures worth it? is one of the biggest questions)
- some were too draconian (not allowed to leave your home unless for specific exceptions - incredibly draconian and probably didn't do any good anyway)
- some were just bonkers (can't buy easter eggs?)
- some things would have been a good idea, but didn't happen (maybe advising people by the end of January 2020 not to go on foreign holidays would have slowed things down a lot for a relatively small sacrifice)

But it seems unlikely that the "lockdowns" were completely wrong, or completely right.

FF43 said:

..

Foxy said:

FF43 said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

I just can’t be arsed to talk about Trans AGAIN

I don't even understand why it's a political issue. It never used to be.

A group of marginal and vulnerable people mostly minding their own business have been caught up in other people's culture wars.

Very regrettably.

I think too there clearly are a rising number of people, particularly youngsters, that identify as Trans. Quite why this is is unclear, but it may well be like the rising recognition of neurodivergence over the last few decades. Was it always there and under recognised previously, or a genuine rise due to factors as yet unknown?

I suspect societal changes. Changing your gender comes with huge challenges. I think people who do so are quite brave. But there does seem to be more acceptance in parts of society, particularly amongst younger people, and some businesses are now taking diversity seriously. An acceptance that Sunak etc are trying to roll back to suit their agenda.

There used to be someone posting on here who was transitioning. I think they were middle aged with grown up children and, remarkably, a Conservative supporter.

Left handedness used to be 2-3% of the population when it was beaten out of you at school; when that stopped it rose to 12% and then plateaued.

The number of lesbian and gay people was low when it could cost you your liberty, job and family. Now it is more accepted, it has increased year on year (especially amongst the young) and more people than ever identify as bi (if only because they accept their may be one or two people of the same gender they find attractive / would date) and most reasonable people no longer claim that LGB people are trying to recruit kids.

The main question around why is this growth primarily within those assigned female at birth, I would also argue, is due to societal factors - not of social contagion - but of bodily autonomy and economic equality. People assigned male at birth who wanted to transition in the past would have had more opportunity to be taken seriously and have the resources to fight for transition. People assigned female at birth wouldn't have - with claims of hysteria, with denial of bodily autonomy around divorce and abortion, etc. - it would seem even less likely that doctors or society would accept transition. Indeed, many of the historical cases of ftm transition involve upper class transmen who did have the resources and freedom to transition (the other major example being times of war when the need for women to do "men's work" and the need for soldiers allowed transmen to act in "manly" ways without societal pressure.) Even though the percentage increases are large, we are still talking about tiny populations.

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war

Half witted Cretin opines.

There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.

I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.

There is a long history of improvised add-on armour for tanks , see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_vehicle_armour . Basically people add things until they are told not to or the suspension breaks.

Yup

The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.

I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”

My Grandad was in REME and spent the summer of 1944 in Normandy cutting armour off dead tanks to be affixed to not-dead tanks...

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile, in Selby and Ainsty, that new Tory candidate has her finger on the pulse:

“I know right now people want an MP who’ll only focus on improving our local communities across Selby and Ainsty – not on political point scoring in Westminster.

“That means I will work with Rishi Sunak and the government on our five clear priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy, reducing debt, cutting hospital waiting lists and stopping the boats.”

[snip]

Perhaps the Tory candidate could tell us just how many boats are sailing from Calais into Selby and/or Ainsty… and explain how stopping them will square with being an MP who’ll only focus on in improving local communities in the area.

Aren’t the Lib Dems the main challengers in S&A? There’s a party that actually will focus relentlessly on local issues during the campaign. The Tory is going to have a hard time facing that down if her approach is to acknowledge that local issues matter in one breath and then parrot inane sloganeering dreamed up by an overpaid Westminster strategist in the next breath.

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.

I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.

I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...

Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.

When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.

In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.

Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.

But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.

Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.

Actually that was me, although @kle4 may well have said it too.

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2919587#Comment_2919587

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war

Half witted Cretin opines.

There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.

I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.

There is a long history of improvised add-on armour for tanks , see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_vehicle_armour . Basically people add things until they are told not to or the suspension breaks.

Yup

The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.

I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”

Hmm. Who shall we get to adjudicate a tank discussion. One name suggests itself

The Chieftain on the Assault Tank M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman, the ultimate up-armored WW2-era Sherman

algarkirk said:

A thought about the 1 minute video of youngish Tories partying from the Mirror today. Partygate, along with other things, means Tories are toast for a few years. All this we knew.

But watching it a couple of times, I feel slightly differently, and rather feel for the characters in it. Of course they are all working for an outfit in the hands of a PM unfit for office. And young Tories are not popular. But for those of a certain age the Covid years were cruel about love, life and fun. There is something of poetry about the two not very brilliant dancers. Nothing in me wants to criticise them. Young people round here in the far north of England took their random chances too.

Probably my bad but it's the opposite feeling for me. They look a gruesome bunch. The sort you run a mile from.

RochdalePioneers said:

Malmesbury said:

viewcode said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war

Half witted Cretin opines.

There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.

I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.

There is a long history of improvised add-on armour for tanks , see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_vehicle_armour . Basically people add things until they are told not to or the suspension breaks.

Yup

The forgotten bit about the Patton crackdown was that it was based on tests - the only thing that helped was real extra armour. By the end of the war, Third Army had more up armoured Shermans than any other formation.

I just liked the vision of some chap wearing a cravat with his tank overalls drawling - “A rockery? Looks nice enough, but are you sure it’s quite The Thing?”

My Grandad was in REME and spent the summer of 1944 in Normandy cutting armour off dead tanks to be affixed to not-dead tanks...

The Jumbo was a tidied up version of those field modifications…

TheValiant said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

In Bootle, everyone hates the Labour party and will never vote for them again.... except on General Election day.

The Conservatives are... what... the oldest party in the world? They never do as bad as you think they should and their opponents never as well as they hope.

1964 - After thirteen years and numerous scandals the Labour party manage a majority of 2.
1970 - Labour are going to win this..... oh they didn't.
1997 - John Major still managed a higher vote share than Michael Foot, Gordon Brown and wasn't far off Miliband's 2015 performance, or Corbyn's 2019. Only FPTP left them with 165 seats.
2015 - Hung parliament all the way. No way back for the Tories... oh wait, they won.

With the possible exception of 2017, the Conservatives always do better than expected.

The "Opinion polls are not to be trusted.. ever....

Muesli said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Meanwhile, in Selby and Ainsty, that new Tory candidate has her finger on the pulse:

“I know right now people want an MP who’ll only focus on improving our local communities across Selby and Ainsty – not on political point scoring in Westminster.

“That means I will work with Rishi Sunak and the government on our five clear priorities: halving inflation, growing the economy, reducing debt, cutting hospital waiting lists and stopping the boats.”

[snip]

Perhaps the Tory candidate could tell us just how many boats are sailing from Calais into Selby and/or Ainsty… and explain how stopping them will square with being an MP who’ll only focus on in improving local communities in the area.

Aren’t the Lib Dems the main challengers in S&A? There’s a party that actually will focus relentlessly on local issues during the campaign. The Tory is going to have a hard time facing that down if her approach is to acknowledge that local issues matter in one breath and then parrot inane sloganeering dreamed up by an overpaid Westminster strategist in the next breath.

I'd swear the Tories have a death wish. I know this is a high-profile byelection which means armies of "assistance" being sent up from London. But surely only the zealots think the agreed line will sell on any doorstep.

JosiasJessop said:

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war

Half witted Cretin opines.

There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.

I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.

This sort of inaccuracy really boils my piss. I mean, this is PB, where accuracy matters, and we should all insist on terminological exactitude.

It is not a 'cage of rocks.

It is a gabion.

I mean, if we cannot get this sort of thing right...

Being a bit a Grammar Fascine ?

kinabalu said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.

I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.

I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...

Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.

When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.

In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.

Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.

But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.

Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.

Yes. It's usual to wait a little longer than 2 years before rewriting history but not in this case, it would appear.

I’ve seen someone go from proudly boasting about stopping a factory bring built to damning the government not supporting industry. In consecutive sentences.

SouthamObserver said:

Sunak doing a four week GE campaign is going to be quite a thing. He makes May look relaxed and spontaneous!

https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1670669224136650752?s=46&t=rw5lNVUgmRPVyKpxfV_pPQ

Ouch. And he keeps making the same errors when he speaks to journalists. Can't some media trainers explain this to him?

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

148grss said:

Anyone supporting the suggestions made in the Sun by Sunak, can I ask:

What are gendered clothes, and what is a preferred name?

Would girls not be allowed to wear trousers, or have short hair? Would my dad (who has been known since his middle name, which is his preference) only be called by his first name? Are nicknames now not allowed?

Why should the impact on other children matter more than the potential trans child? If homophobic parents don't want their kids knowing about gay people, would the same be acceptable regarding gay students?

I thought feminism was supposed to be about giving girls and women freedom to express themselves how they want, I thought "gender criticals" were against gender stereotypes? This is all about enforcement of a rigid binary of societal understanding of gender.

As for the idea that sex education should have to be parent approved - why? Should the same be said for evolution, or religious studies, or history - take out what some parents don't like, a la Florida? Sex education is important not just from the pov of kids knowing the birds and the bees, but also to know if and how they're being assaulted - without the language and knowledge of what is a private act or private part of the body, children may think what happens to them is "normal". And considering most people who sexually assault children are a close family member, this seems to be giving the people who are most likely to assault young people the ability to prevent education that has been shown to reduce assault / empower victims.

WTAF? Perhaps Sunak thinks we should make all girls wear pretty dresses and have their hair in pigtails.

Sunak's more likely to think poor girls should wear handmedown dresses than pretty ones.

Surely we can make better use of little girls than wasting their time sending them to school. Put them on a giant treadmill to generate electricity. That'll stop them all from wanting to be boys.

This thread has

failed to resign its seat and is in a prolonged sulk about not getting an undeserved peerage instead.

I’m very reluctant to criticize the government on their actions during the pandemic . I think most of the public will give them the benefit of the doubt excluding partygate . I can’t honestly say Labour would have done a better job.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but all governments had to make snap decisions.

The issue around PPE could be one area and whether preparations for Brexit took up too much bandwidth might be an area of weakness for them but really I don’t see this enquiry effecting voters choice at the next GE.

Stark_Dawning said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Monksfield said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.

Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.

Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!

As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.

It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.

It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.

You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

That's all true.

But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.

Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.

The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.

"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.

If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.

Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic

Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.

I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.

I don't think that's true. That's just an example of familiarity bias.

You can bet your bottom dollar that had Corbyn been in office, failing to act on security service warnings allowing a terrorist act, hung Ukraine out to dry or done some mad anti-vac/unscientific based response to Covid you'd have your statement precisely the other way round, because it'd have happened.

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Give Ukraine to Russia, time to end this silly war

Half witted Cretin opines.

There was a picture on Twitter of the latest improvised Russian tank armour - a cage of rocks round the turret.

I can’t see that passing the muster in a British cavalry regiment - a rockery is fearfully lower middle class.

Surprised it was not sand filled vodka bottles.

ydoethur said:

turbotubbs said:

RochdalePioneers said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

I am not trolling and everyone who knows me here would agree.

I supported lockdowns at the time. I was wrong, I have changed my mind. Please allow me some respect for being open about it. So many aren’t.

I respect anyone considering a position and changing their mind. I might* have done a few of those myself...

Lockdown was inevitable. You cannot say to people as a virus starts killing large numbers of people that they should ignore it and carry on as normal. The NHS on a repeated basis came perilously close to being completely overwhelmed - so without lockdown we would have had the nightingale "hospitals" manned by a few army medics as the dying were bussed in then directly cremated out the back.

When the government tried to get everyone to carry on there was the inevitable self-locking down, where people simply chose not to go out and spend their money in Starbucks as ordered. That would have happened on a massive scale had lockdown not happened.

In this kind of situation you can control the process, or leave it uncontrolled. Control is always the best option.

Its fine to change your mind. Facts change, intelligent people change what they think.

But to say lockdowns were wrong is not about facts changing. There was no real alternative in March 2020. There could have been other approaches later in the year, but realistically without vaccines, opening society in our crowded islands was always going to be tough.

Someone on here (I think @kle4) said that if lockdowns worked, after we would say they weren't needed. Sadly this is becoming the narrative for too many people.

Actually that was me, although @kle4 may well have said it too.

https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/2919587#Comment_2919587

Apols - you were wise! And spot on.

Casino_Royale said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Monksfield said:

JosiasJessop said:

Monksfield said:

DavidL said:

Roger said:

DavidL said:

Does anybody really believe that Labour are on 48%? I don't.

The Tories had a bad week thanks to Boris, yet again. Hopefully the worst of that is finally over. So far we have had a police report, the Sue Gray report and the Privileges committee report all saying the same things in numbing detail. It's getting beyond dull. But maybe someone else should investigate so we can pretend to be outraged all over again.

Only an extreme Tory devotee would be generous enough to pen that.

Most voters I suspect would hang the lot of them without a second thought. Even twice if that's what it took!

As I have said in another post I expect Labour to get a small majority. But this confected outrage about Boris is getting wearying. Everyone knew he was a liar. Repeatedly confirming it is pointless.

It isn’t all about how Johnson was an inveterate liar - and a tuppenny con artist to boot.

It is that your party saw fit to foist him on the rest of us, whilst knowing all that.

You may not be wrong about the scale of the defeat, it’s the nature of the defeat that will be interesting. Rather like Labour in its red wall, you’ve taken your core vote for granted. You’re going to lose seats that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago.

That's all true.

But remember, Labour put Corbyn forward for two GEs. Someone who is (IMV) far worse than Johnson, and yet the Labour core went out to vote for him, even as he repelled the non-core. And kept him as leader even after he failed.

Fwiw I disagree on Corbyn. Would have been an utter shitshow of course, but Corbyn’s worst ideas would have been opposed by the Labour centrists. They would have provided a massive brake.

The exact opposite to what happened with Johnson, where most of the parliamentary party joined the cult. And those that didn’t were expelled.

"But Corbyn" is the last excuse that those who helped to put Johnson into power have left, the last fig leaf of political respectibility to cover their embarrassment for enabling this amoral crook and his shambolic mess of a government. It is true that Corbyn was an awful leader, and it was a disgrace that Labour chose him, but he is still a better human being than Johnson is, and would have been completely contained by Labour moderates in government. The only people for whom Johnson was the better choice are the various Tory-adjacent grifters who emerged from the Covid crisis with a new house in the Cotswolds and arguably the Labour Party who now have the opportunity to gain a majority under a moderate leader rather than face a divisive Corbyn administration.

If Corbyn was elected PM in 2019 we might now have a UK government actively supporting Putin and Hamas.

Corbyn may also never have even imposed lockdowns or rolled out the vaccines effectively for Covid, his brother is a noted lockdown and vaccine sceptic

Corbyn would have been even worse than Boris, indeed actively dangerous, but, like Boris, he would have been ejected in fairly short order once ensconced in office.

I don't particularly like Corbyn's politics, but they would have come and gone. With Boris - and his wanton assault on institutions, democracy and even truth itself - it's far more lasting and destructive. The damage that man did to this country is immense.

I don't think that's true. That's just an example of familiarity bias.

You can bet your bottom dollar that had Corbyn been in office, failing to act on security service warnings allowing a terrorist act, hung Ukraine out to dry or done some mad anti-vac/unscientific based response to Covid you'd have your statement precisely the other way round, because it'd have happened.

But it didn't happen, whereas 'Boris' did, so for damage done we're talking actual vs hypothetical. The first is a largely objective fact, the second is mainly subjective opinion, which is far more subject to bias.