Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just going along with the law at the time, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
Because what he said in 2022 would now require legislation to overrule the Supreme Court judgment, and he doesn't want to do that because he's afraid it would be unpopular.
The charitable view of all the commitments he made on taxation before the last election was that he thought they were necessary to ensure the election of a Labour government. But now it looks more as though he simply lacks the courage to say anything that may be unpopular. And that this is the reason the government was hamstrung on taxation before it even took office.
Are there any issues he hasn’t changed his mind on?
Enacting the Referendum result Freedom of movement Nationalisation of utilities What a woman is Tuition fees Donald Trump Green energy Jeremy Corbyn The Sun Shamima Begum Extinction Rebellion
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just agreeing with the law, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
You might want to read "Get In". Starmer either has changed his mind (there are precedents for this) or has no opinion. Either way he will say that which is most likely to gain/keep power. As David Herdson points out, this Labour government is ideologically untethered.
To be fair he has contradicted himself on almost every issue since becoming an MP, and it has worked so far. I thought centrists were big on integrity and didn't like liars though
I have a set of principles. If you don't like them, i have another set to offer you.
The correct quotation is, 'Here are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.'
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
It's a limit, rather than a prediction. It will definitely "end" as a life-giving planet by then, but magnetic field problems, axial tilt, asteroid impacts, other extra-stellar supernovas, plate tectonics etc. could all shit the bed well before that.
We probably have 50-100 million years to find and settle on another planet, assuming we survive that long.
Will it be a Thursday? I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just going along with the law at the time, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
Because what he said in 2022 would now require legislation to overrule the Supreme Court judgment, and he doesn't want to do that because he's afraid it would be unpopular.
The charitable view of all the commitments he made on taxation before the last election was that he thought they were necessary to ensure the election of a Labour government. But now it looks more as though he simply lacks the courage to say anything that may be unpopular. And that this is the reason the government was hamstrung on taxation before it even took office.
Are there any issues he hasn’t changed his mind on?
Enacting the Referendum result Freedom of movement Nationalisation of utilities What a woman is Tuition fees Donald Trump Green energy Jeremy Corbyn The Sun Shamima Begum Extinction Rebellion
How shocking. What are the electoral consequences? Who is going to campaign against Labour on these grounds? No-one because they've all changed positions on one thing or another. The public even expects it, hence "political promise".
File it under things that ought to matter but don't.
(Not that I expect Starmer to lead Labour into the next general election anyway.)
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just going along with the law at the time, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
Because what he said in 2022 would now require legislation to overrule the Supreme Court judgment, and he doesn't want to do that because he's afraid it would be unpopular.
The charitable view of all the commitments he made on taxation before the last election was that he thought they were necessary to ensure the election of a Labour government. But now it looks more as though he simply lacks the courage to say anything that may be unpopular. And that this is the reason the government was hamstrung on taxation before it even took office.
Are there any issues he hasn’t changed his mind on?
Enacting the Referendum result Freedom of movement Nationalisation of utilities What a woman is Tuition fees Donald Trump Green energy Jeremy Corbyn The Sun Shamima Begum Extinction Rebellion
How shocking. What are the electoral consequences? Who is going to campaign against Labour on these grounds? No-one because they've all changed positions on one thing or another. The public even expects it, hence "political promise".
File it under things that ought to matter but don't.
(Not that I expect Starmer to lead Labour into the next general election anyway.)
Well obviously there are no electoral consequences, or he wouldn't have managed to get almost as many votes as Jeremey Corbyn and become PM. But it is still quite something for a man who claims to be Mr Integrity
Probably already come up, but this does feel optimistic of Tory supporters (51% of Tories think they will gain seats and only 18% lose seats, with the image being the overall figures) given how many seats are up for grabs.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
Do you know the answer?! I am asking because I wondered when I start having to pay, not because I knew and was making some kind of stealth point!
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just going along with the law at the time, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
Because what he said in 2022 would now require legislation to overrule the Supreme Court judgment, and he doesn't want to do that because he's afraid it would be unpopular.
The charitable view of all the commitments he made on taxation before the last election was that he thought they were necessary to ensure the election of a Labour government. But now it looks more as though he simply lacks the courage to say anything that may be unpopular. And that this is the reason the government was hamstrung on taxation before it even took office.
Are there any issues he hasn’t changed his mind on?
Enacting the Referendum result Freedom of movement Nationalisation of utilities What a woman is Tuition fees Donald Trump Green energy Jeremy Corbyn The Sun Shamima Begum Extinction Rebellion
How shocking. What are the electoral consequences? Who is going to campaign against Labour on these grounds? No-one because they've all changed positions on one thing or another. The public even expects it, hence "political promise".
File it under things that ought to matter but don't.
(Not that I expect Starmer to lead Labour into the next general election anyway.)
Changing your mind is a good and sometimes necessary thing, though explaining why you've done so is needed to justify it, and if you do it too often people will question your general judgement, since it cannot all be down to changing circumstances each time.
Brings to mind possible headlines from the past had Sir Keir been PM
1833: Keir Starmer no longer believes Slavery is ok
1967: Keir Starmer no longer believes homosexuality is dirty
The difference being that the law was changed by parliament in 1833 and 1967.
Whereas the law that Starmer referred to in 2022 is still (supposedly) on the statute book.
At the risk of explaining isam's joke it isn't about the legal position, it is that Starmer needs the law to tell him whether he believes something is morally wrong or not.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
Do you know the answer?! I am asking because I wondered when I start having to pay, not because I knew and was making some kind of stealth point!
Oh, I see. I think it's at secondary age (when it eventually rolls out nationwide) but I'm not 100% sure. As it hasn't affected me directly I haven't kept up with it.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
Starmer is so weak ...getting someone else to say he now doesn't believe trans women are female. It shows him up for what he is ...going with the mood music and retracting when it changes. God help us for having such a weak prime minister. NB written in lower case
It does say Berber on wikipedia page. What is considered b;ack can change though, IIRC that book on historical black Britons many of the examples were of north african arab descent (fully or in part), but apparently that was considered black at the time.
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just agreeing with the law, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
You might want to read "Get In". Starmer either has changed his mind (there are precedents for this) or has no opinion. Either way he will say that which is most likely to gain/keep power. As David Herdson points out, this Labour government is ideologically untethered.
To be fair he has contradicted himself on almost every issue since becoming an MP, and it has worked so far. I thought centrists were big on integrity and didn't like liars though
I have a set of principles. If you don't like them, i have another set to offer you.
The correct quotation is, 'Here are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.'
"THESE are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
I don't have an opinion on it, more surprised that Rentoul, who has no partisan incentive to be desperate, is critical
Keir Starmer no longer believes trans women are women
Does he have a recognition certificate for his change of mind?
The fact that Starmer said in 2022 "trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law.” must surely be used as a stick to beat him with now. He wasn't just agreeing with the law, he said it was his view; now he disagree with his 2022 self. Why?
You might want to read "Get In". Starmer either has changed his mind (there are precedents for this) or has no opinion. Either way he will say that which is most likely to gain/keep power. As David Herdson points out, this Labour government is ideologically untethered.
To be fair he has contradicted himself on almost every issue since becoming an MP, and it has worked so far. I thought centrists were big on integrity and didn't like liars though
I have a set of principles. If you don't like them, i have another set to offer you.
The correct quotation is, 'Here are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.'
"THESE are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
French school dinners are amazing. I’ve seen them in action at the local school in Cluny. Not particularly exotic, but proper.
Starter, usually something like a terrine. Main course with veg and salad. Bread on the side. Cheese course, then dessert, one of the usual crème brûlée, tarte tatin, fromage blanc.
Brings to mind possible headlines from the past had Sir Keir been PM
1833: Keir Starmer no longer believes Slavery is ok
1967: Keir Starmer no longer believes homosexuality is dirty
The difference being that the law was changed by parliament in 1833 and 1967.
Whereas the law that Starmer referred to in 2022 is still (supposedly) on the statute book.
At the risk of explaining isam's joke it isn't about the legal position, it is that Starmer needs the law to tell him whether he believes something is morally wrong or not.
People do unintentionally do that quite a bit.
During the prorogation issue I recall thinking that whether it was legal or not was important, but besides the point on whether it was the wrong thing to do or not, but there was so much emphasis on the legal argument that the implication was there would be no issue, when just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. A related issue seemed at play with some of the arguments in the Begum cases, in that some were so morally outraged by certain aspects that it seemed that in itself was argued as a basis for it being unlawful, when things can be shitty but still lawful.
Starmer is so weak ...getting someone else to say he now doesn't believe trans women are female. It shows him up for what he is ...going with the mood music and retracting when it changes. God help us for having such a weak prime minister. NB written in lower case
I do find his seeming weakness when it comes to principled arguments bemusing, and surely self defeating.
Trump shows (as did Boris, as did Salmond and Sturgeon) that if you make an argument with confidence and force you can pull public opinion in your direction.
All of us (most of us) believe it should be allowed somewhere between 1 day and nine months.
Let's imagine that Starmer thinks it should be 28 weeks which is the legal position. The law then changes to allow it at 26 weeks. His position on trans women is analogous to him then announcing that he thinks it should be 26 weeks.
Like abortion, one's position on trans women is primarily a moral one.
Bridget Phillipson has been giving a statement and answering questions on the SC judgement in the House. It's an impressive performance - calm and reassuring to all sides while sticking to the SC decision. I've been watching, and even MP opponents of the judgement have been praising the way she's handled it. If/when Starmer goes, she'll have a good chance of replacing him if she wants it.
Starmer is so weak ...getting someone else to say he now doesn't believe trans women are female. It shows him up for what he is ...going with the mood music and retracting when it changes. God help us for having such a weak prime minister. NB written in lower case
I do find his seeming weakness when it comes to principled arguments bemusing, and surely self defeating.
Trump shows (as did Boris, as did Salmond and Sturgeon) that if you make an argument with confidence and force you can pull public opinion in your direction.
Trump is, very regrettably, a true political leader in that respect.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
French school dinners are amazing. I’ve seen them in action at the local school in Cluny. Not particularly exotic, but proper.
Starter, usually something like a terrine. Main course with veg and salad. Bread on the side. Cheese course, then dessert, one of the usual crème brûlée, tarte tatin, fromage blanc.
One thing I forgot to add to the fresh fish debate earlier: if we spent money on food like the French and Italians do (50%/70% more, as a proportion of income), we'd probably eat a lot more fresh fish.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
Soon as our daughter is accepted for a primary it's first job to book her in for the breakfast club lol
Brings to mind possible headlines from the past had Sir Keir been PM
1833: Keir Starmer no longer believes Slavery is ok
1967: Keir Starmer no longer believes homosexuality is dirty
The difference being that the law was changed by parliament in 1833 and 1967.
Whereas the law that Starmer referred to in 2022 is still (supposedly) on the statute book.
At the risk of explaining isam's joke it isn't about the legal position, it is that Starmer needs the law to tell him whether he believes something is morally wrong or not.
People do unintentionally do that quite a bit.
During the prorogation issue I recall thinking that whether it was legal or not was important, but besides the point on whether it was the wrong thing to do or not, but there was so much emphasis on the legal argument that the implication was there would be no issue, when just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. A related issue seemed at play with some of the arguments in the Begum cases, in that some were so morally outraged by certain aspects that it seemed that in itself was argued as a basis for it being unlawful, when things can be shitty but still lawful.
Human psychology does seem to work like that. Consider things that have become unlawful and have therefore become seen as immoral: children not wearing seatbelts, passive smoking indoors, driving while on a mobile, drink driving, insider trading, smacking children.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
Breakfast for all schoolchildren would be a massive priority for me. Every child should start the day with a hearty breakfast to give them the energy to learn and grow. I would also ideally want them all to have a nutritious cooked lunch guaranteed for free every day.
I think feeding schoolchildren is as important as the lessons. Not only the physical benefits but to have them all sitting, eating and interacting twice a day in a quasi social setting and exposing to vegetables and other foods they might not get at home will have long term benefits.
I’m far from a bleeding heart liberal but this is something that’s v important to me.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
French school dinners are amazing. I’ve seen them in action at the local school in Cluny. Not particularly exotic, but proper.
Starter, usually something like a terrine. Main course with veg and salad. Bread on the side. Cheese course, then dessert, one of the usual crème brûlée, tarte tatin, fromage blanc.
One thing I forgot to add to the fresh fish debate earlier: if we spent money on food like the French and Italians do (50%/70% more, as a proportion of income), we'd probably eat a lot more fresh fish.
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
All of us (most of us) believe it should be allowed somewhere between 1 day and nine months.
Let's imagine that Starmer thinks it should be 28 weeks which is the legal position. The law then changes to allow it at 26 weeks. His position on trans women is analogous to him then announcing that he thinks it should be 26 weeks.
Like abortion, one's position on trans women is primarily a moral one.
And the law is whatever the law says it is. That doesn't have to mean it's the philosophical truth (see that pi = 3 exactly law that wasn't quite like that but you get the idea), and it doesn't have to have anything to do with mortality (there have been plenty of utterly disgusting things enshrined in law.) One of the reasons this whole fiasco has fiascoed is the multiple attempts to make law do things it can't really do.
Brings to mind possible headlines from the past had Sir Keir been PM
1833: Keir Starmer no longer believes Slavery is ok
1967: Keir Starmer no longer believes homosexuality is dirty
The difference being that the law was changed by parliament in 1833 and 1967.
Whereas the law that Starmer referred to in 2022 is still (supposedly) on the statute book.
At the risk of explaining isam's joke it isn't about the legal position, it is that Starmer needs the law to tell him whether he believes something is morally wrong or not.
People do unintentionally do that quite a bit.
During the prorogation issue I recall thinking that whether it was legal or not was important, but besides the point on whether it was the wrong thing to do or not, but there was so much emphasis on the legal argument that the implication was there would be no issue, when just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. A related issue seemed at play with some of the arguments in the Begum cases, in that some were so morally outraged by certain aspects that it seemed that in itself was argued as a basis for it being unlawful, when things can be shitty but still lawful.
Human psychology does seem to work like that. Consider things that have become unlawful and have therefore become seen as immoral: children not wearing seatbelts, passive smoking indoors, driving while on a mobile, drink driving, insider trading, smacking children.
And of course things that have become lawful and are now seen (by most) as not immoral, such as gay marriage. There were quite a few politicians in the 2010s who had been around a long time who came a long way on that subject, to the point a position many of them held for ages was seen as nearly unthinkable.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
I would say actually there's a good case for saying giving them free school meals right the way to 16 would be one way of improving their attendance and behaviour without actually spending vast amounts of money, given that once you're making meals of any sort scaling up is actually fairly cheap.
It's the one thing that really should be universal, to avoid stigma for kids in school. If breakfasts become the norm, it opens up lots of commuting/errands time for parents too.
Soon as our daughter is accepted for a primary it's first job to book her in for the breakfast club lol
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Starmer believed a transwoman to be a woman in 2022, and he claimed this was regardless of whether it was the law or not. Now he has apparently changed his mind, so he did originally pin his colours to the mast - look how he treated Rosie Duffield
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
Breakfast for all schoolchildren would be a massive priority for me. Every child should start the day with a hearty breakfast to give them the energy to learn and grow. I would also ideally want them all to have a nutritious cooked lunch guaranteed for free every day.
I think feeding schoolchildren is as important as the lessons. Not only the physical benefits but to have them all sitting, eating and interacting twice a day in a quasi social setting and exposing to vegetables and other foods they might not get at home will have long term benefits.
I’m far from a bleeding heart liberal but this is something that’s v important to me.
With breakfast clubs and after school clubs, is there perhaps a risk of displacing parents altogether?
Bridget Phillipson has been giving a statement and answering questions on the SC judgement in the House. It's an impressive performance - calm and reassuring to all sides while sticking to the SC decision. I've been watching, and even MP opponents of the judgement have been praising the way she's handled it. If/when Starmer goes, she'll have a good chance of replacing him if she wants it.
She has played a pretty straight bat as Labour backbencher after Labour backbencher has stood up to ask about what happens to their trans constituents, not their female constituents.
Given Labour’s considerable change of tack on the matter it took considerable brass neck to blame the Tories for all the problems - but she was right that the NHS mess over single sex wards happened on the Tories watch, so there she did have a point.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Thanks to @KemiBadenoch whose brilliant speech just now was the actual truth, not a new rewritten convenient version if it. She has been one of the most consistent supporters of feminists and women's sex-based rights, unlike any of those opposite now pretending to be.
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
Breakfast for all schoolchildren would be a massive priority for me. Every child should start the day with a hearty breakfast to give them the energy to learn and grow. I would also ideally want them all to have a nutritious cooked lunch guaranteed for free every day.
I think feeding schoolchildren is as important as the lessons. Not only the physical benefits but to have them all sitting, eating and interacting twice a day in a quasi social setting and exposing to vegetables and other foods they might not get at home will have long term benefits.
I’m far from a bleeding heart liberal but this is something that’s v important to me.
With breakfast clubs and after school clubs, is there perhaps a risk of displacing parents altogether?
Parolin's lack of pastoral experience stands against him.
Turkson is bit of a great replacementist (he's on record as being concerned about "Muslim demographics") and so he may be Meloni and the Spectator magazine's favoured candidate. Probably not favoured by many Francis picks though.
Everyone's saying they won't choose two Jesuits in a row, but who knows? Said pundits were probably amazed when Ratzinger resigned. So...Michael Czerny? Is anyone offering odds? I'd love to back him as a long shot. He's 78, so the right age, and isn't it time for a bearded pope?
Yes, just for the name. And I'd hope he didn't ruin it by taking a different Papal one.
There's Zuppi in there too, so they're making a meal of it.
When I first saw the list I thought it a pisstake due to those names 😂
I felt the same about 20 years ago when The Times ran a story about the contenders to be President of South Africa and one of the candidates was Tokyo Sexwale .
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
What does that even mean? Surely any policy could be seen as a bribe if you look at it in the right way. More police, more buses, more steel mills – are they bribes too? What of raising pensions or cutting taxes where actual cash changes hands?
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
Breakfast for all schoolchildren would be a massive priority for me. Every child should start the day with a hearty breakfast to give them the energy to learn and grow. I would also ideally want them all to have a nutritious cooked lunch guaranteed for free every day.
I think feeding schoolchildren is as important as the lessons. Not only the physical benefits but to have them all sitting, eating and interacting twice a day in a quasi social setting and exposing to vegetables and other foods they might not get at home will have long term benefits.
I’m far from a bleeding heart liberal but this is something that’s v important to me.
With breakfast clubs and after school clubs, is there perhaps a risk of displacing parents altogether?
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
They’re losing control of the narrative on this, and it serves them right. They’ve spent years telling everyone Democrat-run cities (and most of Europe) are hellholes and no go areas running with blood.
All of us (most of us) believe it should be allowed somewhere between 1 day and nine months.
Let's imagine that Starmer thinks it should be 28 weeks which is the legal position. The law then changes to allow it at 26 weeks. His position on trans women is analogous to him then announcing that he thinks it should be 26 weeks.
Like abortion, one's position on trans women is primarily a moral one.
And the law is whatever the law says it is. That doesn't have to mean it's the philosophical truth (see that pi = 3 exactly law that wasn't quite like that but you get the idea), and it doesn't have to have anything to do with mortality (there have been plenty of utterly disgusting things enshrined in law.) One of the reasons this whole fiasco has fiascoed is the multiple attempts to make law do things it can't really do.
Starmer, above all is a lawyer
Starmer said in 2022 that it was his view that a transwoman is a woman, now he is saying they aren't. He wasn't just telling us what the law was in 2022, and he is apparently not doing that today either
Thanks to @KemiBadenoch whose brilliant speech just now was the actual truth, not a new rewritten convenient version if it. She has been one of the most consistent supporters of feminists and women's sex-based rights, unlike any of those opposite now pretending to be.
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
He was wrong too. Stubborn politicians who refuse to accept the world as it is become anachronistic. Benn was one of them. Corbyn another.
...and yet his five questions - “What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you” - survived his death and influenced Leavers during the Brexit debate, including Michael Gove.
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
They’re losing control of the narrative on this, and it serves them right. They’ve spent years telling everyone Democrat-run cities (and most of Europe) are hellholes and no go areas running with blood.
Not sure that is why tourism and business travel to US has imploded!!!
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
They’re losing control of the narrative on this, and it serves them right. They’ve spent years telling everyone Democrat-run cities (and most of Europe) are hellholes and no go areas running with blood.
Not sure that is why tourism and business travel to US has imploded!!!
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Mrs J works extensively with colleagues from Austin. Apparently no-one from the UK is going over there any more; they are all coming over here. It'll be interesting to see how long that continues. Mrs J is *not* keen to go over...
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
He was wrong too. Stubborn politicians who refuse to accept the world as it is become anachronistic. Benn was one of them. Corbyn another.
He didn't say Signposts were more likely to be successful.
There were major changes under Thatcher, which few had foreseen in 1975.
Benn would have called Farage a Signpost too. For many years, back in the days before the word "Brexit" was coined, wanting to leave the EU was viewed by most people as similar to having body odour - as going on about how great Enoch Powell was still is. Now an incarnation of UKIP has led the field in some polls for the next GE.
Numerous posts in last few days claiming a big upsurge in the interest in religion in this country.
The Pope dies. It's hard to think of a bigger event in the world of religion.
The BBC alters its schedules to put a special programme on BBC1 (the most watched TV channel in the UK overall) right in the middle of prime-time at 9pm last night.
The ratings for the 9pm hour:
BBC ONE: Pope Francis: The People's Pope ≈ 800k (6.3%) BBC TWO: Pilgrimage: The Road Through The Alps ≈ 830k (6.5%) ITV1: Celebrity Big Brother ≈ 1.5m (12.2%) C4: 999: The Critical List ≈ 950k (7.5%) 5: The Feud ≈ 1.4m (10.9%)
It is almost unheard of for BBC1 to rate lower than all the other four main channels.
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Mrs J works extensively with colleagues from Austin. Apparently no-one from the UK is going over there any more; they are all coming over here. It'll be interesting to see how long that continues. Mrs J is *not* keen to go over...
Why? Do they lock women up for being married to men with heretical views on Deltics?
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
He was wrong too. Stubborn politicians who refuse to accept the world as it is become anachronistic. Benn was one of them. Corbyn another.
He didn't say Signposts were more likely to be successful.
There were major changes under Thatcher.
Benn would have called Farage a Signpost too. For many years, back in the days before the word "Brexit" had been coined, wanting to leave the EU was viewed by most people as similar to having body odour - as going on about how great Enoch Powell was still is. Now an incarnation of UKIP has led the field in some polls for the next GE.
If Tony Benn had lived long enough to take part in the Brexit campaign, presumably on the Leave side, I wonder how it would have gone. There was, essentially, no serious left-wing voice for Brexit.
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Mrs J works extensively with colleagues from Austin. Apparently no-one from the UK is going over there any more; they are all coming over here. It'll be interesting to see how long that continues. Mrs J is *not* keen to go over...
When they come over here, do they decide not to go back? Or at least ponder whether they should?
All of us (most of us) believe it should be allowed somewhere between 1 day and nine months.
Let's imagine that Starmer thinks it should be 28 weeks which is the legal position. The law then changes to allow it at 26 weeks. His position on trans women is analogous to him then announcing that he thinks it should be 26 weeks.
Like abortion, one's position on trans women is primarily a moral one.
I'd say the moral aspect is more at the extremes. Eg with abortion, being anti because it's murder, or pro because a woman owns her own body. Those views are values driven, 'moral' if you like. But when you get into the detail of things like term limits it becomes a more grounded question, about a balancing of rights, about medical realities etc. So if I (say) think 20 weeks and you think 25 weeks that's not really a moral disagreement we have.
Trans is similar. At the extremes, it's mainly principle, you are who you say you are vs you cannot be other than who you were born as. But when you get into the detail of the EA, the GRA, what a GRC means, sports, prisons, toilets etc etc, the different positions that people take are not necessarily (in fact I'd say not usually) driven by wildly different moralities.
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
So the WH press sec starts the daily pool by introducing some "new media seat" kids and podcasters who will ask some questions and kinda broaden the narrative etc etc.
First question seems to be a long conspiracy rant about old media and MI13 gang members.
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
He was wrong too. Stubborn politicians who refuse to accept the world as it is become anachronistic. Benn was one of them. Corbyn another.
He didn't say Signposts were more likely to be successful.
There were major changes under Thatcher.
Benn would have called Farage a Signpost too. For many years, back in the days before the word "Brexit" had been coined, wanting to leave the EU was viewed by most people as similar to having body odour - as going on about how great Enoch Powell was still is. Now an incarnation of UKIP has led the field in some polls for the next GE.
If Tony Benn had lived long enough to take part in the Brexit campaign, presumably on the Leave side, I wonder how it would have gone. There was, essentially, no serious left-wing voice for Brexit.
Agreed, Benn would have backed Leave. For reasons best known to himself, he was also a friend of Enoch Powell.
There wasn't much of sensible left-wing voice for Remain either. There should have been a call for immigrant workers to join unions. That's a left-wing take on immigration. None of this nationalist crap.
The thing I find bemusing about the hasty row backs on the trans issue is just quite how spineless some of these figures are. I would count Starmer in that now.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Tony Benn:
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
He was wrong too. Stubborn politicians who refuse to accept the world as it is become anachronistic. Benn was one of them. Corbyn another.
He didn't say Signposts were more likely to be successful.
There were major changes under Thatcher.
Benn would have called Farage a Signpost too. For many years, back in the days before the word "Brexit" had been coined, wanting to leave the EU was viewed by most people as similar to having body odour - as going on about how great Enoch Powell was still is. Now an incarnation of UKIP has led the field in some polls for the next GE.
If Tony Benn had lived long enough to take part in the Brexit campaign, presumably on the Leave side, I wonder how it would have gone. There was, essentially, no serious left-wing voice for Brexit.
Lord Glasman's case left wing case for Brexit was quite compelling. There's a quote in it I really liked, so much so that I have forgotten it! But it was something along the lines of FOM being the best capitalist con trick on record
The sudden pretence we needed the Supreme Court to tell our police, hospitals, schools, councils, charities what we all instinctively know to be true really is pitiful. It takes imbecilic levels of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that allowing male-bodied individuals into rape crisis centres wouldn’t be problematic, or that populating gynae wards with folk seeking prostate exams was a splendid idea. So too the hypothesis that sex at birth is determined by a coin toss rather than looking at what’s between your legs, the expectation that victims of sex attacks refer to their male assailants as she when in the dock, or contemplating for a nano-second that recording the sex of rapists as anything other than male was going to pass unnoticed. And all of that is before you get to toilets and changing rooms!
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
Quite. Whatever are parents for?
There is no point in bleating 'why don't parents do their job and nurture and feed their kids' because it is evident that there will always be some who don't for a variety of reasons including in the modern age being smashed off their faces on drugs.
Why not try and break that cycle by giving their kids the best start to the day possible so they can actually learn rather than be literally hungry all morning for a relatively small sum?
It's a limit, rather than a prediction. It will definitely "end" as a life-giving planet by then, but magnetic field problems, axial tilt, asteroid impacts, other extra-stellar supernovas, plate tectonics etc. could all shit the bed well before that.
We probably have 50-100 million years to find and settle on another planet, assuming we survive that long.
Maybe the next Pope can tell us if the Rapture will have happened by then
Wait.
You don't think the Pope will be saved in the event of the Rapture happening?
Is Labour’s breakfast club rollout a poorly disguised bribe?
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
Possibly, but actually it's still a good idea. Getting a decent breakfast down them before they start school certainly will make a difference to their concentration levels.
At what age do we have to start paying for the kids school meals?
Quite. Whatever are parents for?
There is no point in bleating 'why don't parents do their job and nurture and feed their kids' because it is evident that there will always be some who don't for a variety of reasons including in the modern age being smashed off their faces on drugs.
Why not try and break that cycle by giving their kids the best start to the day possible so they can actually learn rather than be literally hungry all morning for a relatively small sum?
Make your mind up - is it "there will always be some" or is it "in the modern age"? Why not just nationalise children? Or at least the pleb ones who don't go to private school. You seem really to believe that a large number of working class parents who are finding it difficult to feed their children, given an extra £20 for that purpose, will buy a tube of glue and get out of their heads.
The sudden pretence we needed the Supreme Court to tell our police, hospitals, schools, councils, charities what we all instinctively know to be true really is pitiful. It takes imbecilic levels of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that allowing male-bodied individuals into rape crisis centres wouldn’t be problematic, or that populating gynae wards with folk seeking prostate exams was a splendid idea. So too the hypothesis that sex at birth is determined by a coin toss rather than looking at what’s between your legs, the expectation that victims of sex attacks refer to their male assailants as she when in the dock, or contemplating for a nano-second that recording the sex of rapists as anything other than male was going to pass unnoticed. And all of that is before you get to toilets and changing rooms!
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Mrs J works extensively with colleagues from Austin. Apparently no-one from the UK is going over there any more; they are all coming over here. It'll be interesting to see how long that continues. Mrs J is *not* keen to go over...
Why? Do they lock women up for being married to men with heretical views on Deltics?
If she did go over, I bet she'd use her UK and not her Turkish passport...
(She had a great incident when arriving in the US years ago. The woman at passport control saw she worked for a company with 'silicon' in its name. She frowned, and asked "What does your company do?"
"We design computer chips," Mrs J replied.
"Ah, chips, not tits," the officer replied. She had confused silicon and silicone... )
Comments
Enacting the Referendum result
Freedom of movement
Nationalisation of utilities
What a woman is
Tuition fees
Donald Trump
Green energy
Jeremy Corbyn
The Sun
Shamima Begum
Extinction Rebellion
At first glance, it appears to be a much-needed step towards universal social provision, writes John Rentoul. In reality, it is a way of currying favour among voters – using taxpayers’ money
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/labour-breakfast-clubs-primary-schools-b2737295.html
barrelsausage politics.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK3HOMhAeQY
File it under things that ought to matter but don't.
(Not that I expect Starmer to lead Labour into the next general election anyway.)
https://conservativehome.com/2025/04/22/lord-ashcroft-my-latest-polling-doubts-over-trumps-tariffs-lasting-and-conservative-voters-expectations-for-the-local-elections/
Breakfast clubs would not be my priority but this is desperate stuff.
It shows him up for what he is ...going with the mood music and retracting when it changes.
God help us for having such a weak prime minister. NB written in lower case
Starter, usually something like a terrine. Main course with veg and salad. Bread on the side. Cheese course, then dessert, one of the usual crème brûlée, tarte tatin, fromage blanc.
During the prorogation issue I recall thinking that whether it was legal or not was important, but besides the point on whether it was the wrong thing to do or not, but there was so much emphasis on the legal argument that the implication was there would be no issue, when just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. A related issue seemed at play with some of the arguments in the Begum cases, in that some were so morally outraged by certain aspects that it seemed that in itself was argued as a basis for it being unlawful, when things can be shitty but still lawful.
Trump shows (as did Boris, as did Salmond and Sturgeon) that if you make an argument with confidence and force you can pull public opinion in your direction.
All of us (most of us) believe it should be allowed somewhere between 1 day and nine months.
Let's imagine that Starmer thinks it should be 28 weeks which is the legal position. The law then changes to allow it at 26 weeks. His position on trans women is analogous to him then announcing that he thinks it should be 26 weeks.
Like abortion, one's position on trans women is primarily a moral one.
If/when Starmer goes, she'll have a good chance of replacing him if she wants it.
I think feeding schoolchildren is as important as the lessons. Not only the physical benefits but to have them all sitting, eating and interacting twice a day in a quasi social setting and exposing to vegetables and other foods they might not get at home will have long term benefits.
I’m far from a bleeding heart liberal but this is something that’s v important to me.
They weren’t willing to pin their colours to the mast until such time as they had a court do the work for them. Now they’ve got the political cover, they’ll come down on one side of the argument. In the meantime lots of decisions have been made, rightly or wrongly, about people’s livelihoods and lifestyles with nary a whisper.
Starmer, above all is a lawyer
Or maybe as we were pretty poor that was just my mind justifying a position it would have been in anyway.
Might be why I was such a shortarse.
Given Labour’s considerable change of tack on the matter it took considerable brass neck to blame the Tories for all the problems - but she was right that the NHS mess over single sex wards happened on the Tories watch, so there she did have a point.
One name omitted and rumoured among those in the Vatican to be Pope Francis' favourite is French Cardinal Aveline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Aveline
https://x.com/rosieduffield1/status/1914727107294556204?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I have divided politicians into two categories: the Signposts and the Weathercocks. The Signpost says: 'This is the way we should go.' And you don't have to follow them but if you come back in ten years time the Signpost is still there.
The Weathercock hasn’t got an opinion until they've looked at the polls, talked to the focus groups, discussed it with the spin doctors. And I've no time for Weathercocks, I'm a Signpost man. And in fairness, although I disagreed with everything she did, Mrs Thatcher was a Signpost. She said what she meant. Meant what she said. Did what she said she’d do if you voted for her. So everybody who voted for her shared responsibility for what happened. And I think that we do need a few more Signposts and few fewer Weathercocks
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9837439-i-have-divided-politicians-into-two-categories-the-signposts-and
Turkson is bit of a great replacementist (he's on record as being concerned about "Muslim demographics") and so he may be Meloni and the Spectator magazine's favoured candidate. Probably not favoured by many Francis picks though.
Everyone's saying they won't choose two Jesuits in a row, but who knows? Said pundits were probably amazed when Ratzinger resigned. So...Michael Czerny? Is anyone offering odds? I'd love to back him as a long shot. He's 78, so the right age, and isn't it time for a bearded pope?
Zuppi is a possible for sure.
Who does Peter Thiel want?
Leavitt: "I think most recognize the U.S. Is a great place to do business, a beautiful place to visit and they should come here because it is a much safer country than four years ago under the previous president."
Narrator: People are literally being deported for having phone messages being mean about Trumpski or snatched off the street with no due process.
Duffield, 53, has become the fastest MP to jump ship after a general election in modern political history.
Sunday Times, via Wikipedia.
@RpsAgainstTrump
·
2h
Steve Bannon: “the Deep State is winning right now”🤣🤦♂️
I think it is likely that we will see an Indian military strike on Pakistan in the coming weeks.
https://x.com/shashj/status/1914728750324867527
It's clearly the DfE's fault.
More to do with ICE.
Still not going - Canada instead!
Rosie Duffield was an opportunist long before this whole issue. It is quite obvious she was in the wrong party.
There were major changes under Thatcher, which few had foreseen in 1975.
Benn would have called Farage a Signpost too. For many years, back in the days before the word "Brexit" was coined, wanting to leave the EU was viewed by most people as similar to having body odour - as going on about how great Enoch Powell was still is. Now an incarnation of UKIP has led the field in some polls for the next GE.
The Pope dies. It's hard to think of a bigger event in the world of religion.
The BBC alters its schedules to put a special programme on BBC1 (the most watched TV channel in the UK overall) right in the middle of prime-time at 9pm last night.
The ratings for the 9pm hour:
BBC ONE: Pope Francis: The People's Pope ≈ 800k (6.3%)
BBC TWO: Pilgrimage: The Road Through The Alps ≈ 830k (6.5%)
ITV1: Celebrity Big Brother ≈ 1.5m (12.2%)
C4: 999: The Critical List ≈ 950k (7.5%)
5: The Feud ≈ 1.4m (10.9%)
It is almost unheard of for BBC1 to rate lower than all the other four main channels.
Source: Broadcast
https://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/ratings/pope-tribute-doc-informs-800000/5204116.article
Trans is similar. At the extremes, it's mainly principle, you are who you say you are vs you cannot be other than who you were born as. But when you get into the detail of the EA, the GRA, what a GRC means, sports, prisons, toilets etc etc, the different positions that people take are not necessarily (in fact I'd say not usually) driven by wildly different moralities.
First question seems to be a long conspiracy rant about old media and MI13 gang members.
For reasons best known to himself, he was also a friend of Enoch Powell.
There wasn't much of sensible left-wing voice for Remain either. There should have been a call for immigrant workers to join unions. That's a left-wing take on immigration. None of this nationalist crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5vsa1FLKY
https://archive.ph/CC1UW
More than 20 killed after gunmen open fire on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir
Why not try and break that cycle by giving their kids the best start to the day possible so they can actually learn rather than be literally hungry all morning for a relatively small sum?
You don't think the Pope will be saved in the event of the Rapture happening?
Why not just nationalise children? Or at least the pleb ones who don't go to private school.
You seem really to believe that a large number of working class parents who are finding it difficult to feed their children, given an extra £20 for that purpose, will buy a tube of glue and get out of their heads.
And so many of our senior politicans not only gave it airtime, but agreed.
If she did go over, I bet she'd use her UK and not her Turkish passport...
(She had a great incident when arriving in the US years ago. The woman at passport control saw she worked for a company with 'silicon' in its name. She frowned, and asked "What does your company do?"
"We design computer chips," Mrs J replied.
"Ah, chips, not tits," the officer replied. She had confused silicon and silicone... )