Maggie Out? – politicalbetting.com
Maggie Out? – politicalbetting.com
“…it was with considerable concern and dismay that we read reports of Ms Chapman MSP addressing a public gathering in the wake of the recent ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers.” https://t.co/fjOxgF86qi
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Reform 25%
Labour 23%
Tories 20%
Lib Dems16%
Greens 10%.
Might not be too long before the Tories go sub 20%
https://x.com/Barchart/status/1914728675913937260
You're right Cyclefree, that language is unacceptable.
He owes a grovelling apology to moral detritus for comparing them to Massive and Dumbinic.
One point I don't think you raise is the one Hale made after the SC ruling on prorogation - if politicians don't like the law as it stands, they do have the power to change it, so they should not whinge and bitch.
That may be more difficult for Chapman as it's a reserved matter, of course.
An afternoon at Holyrood leaves you in despair at the quality of the people who run Scotland. What they think passes for doing government. What they think people will put up with, and what won't come back to bite them.
I'd say it was cynicism, and some of it is, but most of it doesn't even achieve the level of self-awareness that that would require.
These people believe their own propaganda, about their own talents, and it's truly mind-blowing.
https://x.com/LucyHunterB/status/1914830904251285862
Borrowing, the difference between spending and income from taxes, was £151.9bn in the year to March, up £20.7bn from the year before.
The amount borrowed was much higher than the £137.3bn predicted by the UK's official forecaster.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS), which released the figures, said borrowing the financial year was the third highest on record.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly59dy4x7ko
As in, what bizarre and convoluted system of reasoning would they use?
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIjATK9sEyF/
King Donald can do whatever he likes.
However I would challenge one assumption that Cyclefree has made - a group who are entirely within their rights to question whether the Supreme Court's ruling is the right one that should be the law is politicians - and anyone else who engages in political debate under our right to free speech.
The Supreme Court ruling on any matter is not the end of the debate, it is the end of the debate as to what the law is today.
If the politicians, or any campaigners, or anyone else interested in politics, or any citizens at all, wish the law were different then they are entirely within their rights to say that the law is an ass, and the law should be changed, in Parliament. That is what Parliament is for.
They just can't pretend the law is anything other than what the Court says it is anymore.
Badenoch says and does things badly, but Jenrick says and does bad things.
Or I've just popped over to https://www.google.co.uk/ which has a St George's Day theme.
An MP attacking the Supreme Court for doing their job is a both damaging (to the court and law of the land) and stupid. Because the role of Parliament if they don't like how a law is determined is to change the law until it matches what they want the law to look like.
And good luck to any MP when it comes to this set of laws as, as I've pointed out time and again the law is after 2 contradictory items and there are an awful lot of people who will not be happy whatever the end law looks like as we can see at the moment.
Which was more likely to have happened
a) The virgin birth
or
b) The killing of a dragon by St George
1) he cared enough to make a place inhuman that he asked for it to be done
2) he spent money getting someone to do something utterly pointless
3) he paid more attention to that bit of spite than most of his actual day job...
As @ForWomenScot land observe:
As reported in @heraldscotland today, we were contacted by the committee, albeit in a manner which contrasted to the paid orgs.*
The interveners were not contacted.
However, while Maggie Chapman remains on that committee, we cannot see how we can respond. We have always been happy to engage with those who disagree with us, but we cannot engage with those who rabble-rouse, disrespect the rule of law, lie about the women who supported us, and flout parliamentary standards.
https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1914584584211120386
*Notice that for the SG (party to case with lots of paid staff) the Committee "appreciates you will be not immediately be in a position to provide a full response" - but omits that sentence, for @ForWomenScot, 3 volunteer women who've just been thro the mill, over Easter weekend.
https://x.com/LucyHunterB/status/1913001029701873691
Few politicians (with the odd exception) have covered themselves in glory in this episode, but the SNP and Scottish Greens have been particularly poor.
I note that not a single voice (that I have heard) has been raised to *change the law*
They could pass a law making single sex spaces open to trans - and make it specifically primary legislation so that it wins the game of Top Trumps (ha) Law.
But they won’t.
Nobody would pay these people that sort of money for anything else
Would you hire any of them? For anything?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly59dy4x7ko
Not far short of a £20bn
blackholeoverspend....Profits are tanking. A growth stock no longer growing.
https://x.com/pronkdaniel/status/1914784825229369474?s=61
I fear the public finances in this Parliament ain't going to be pretty.
Why ever not? Judges are human and may indeed exhibit bigotry, prejudice and/or hatred. The Supreme Court may also possibly misinterpret the law. Although as has been pointed out, the correct response is that, if you don't like the law, pass a new one.
I had a skim of the SC judgment yesterday. It is quite long and tedious and it is a pity they didn't produce their own executive summary. It seems to be saying that trans women can be treated as women for most purposes, that the obtainment of a GRC makes little difference (as other people can't be expected to know that they have one) but that for purposes of the Equality Act it is biological sex that is protected, and that is immutable.
It even goes out of its way to say that it does *not* define the meaning of "woman", other than for this narrow meaning. That's right at the beginning, so everyone should have read it.
Brilliant wealth-creators all.
And they wonder why people think of politicians as lying shysters.
What are SNP MPs in Westminster - which has power over the matter - saying about what change they want in the law in order to bring it into a state Scotland would approve?
Or are they too hiding behind attacking the judges?
Any updates on what the good Baroness thinks of the issue now?
Politicians are free to say the law is an ass and should be changed, I never said the Justices should be criticised. Nor that Parliament should change the law in this instance (especially since I agree with the law in this instance) merely the principle that they can.
However I would not say that the Justices should be beyond criticism either. While we are not there today, if we were to get a Justice like Taney or a decision like Dred Scott I would be entirely comfortable with there becoming a question of debating whether the Justices are fit to hold their office.
Tesla is a hype stock, and one where people make killings out of short-term price alterations that often occur because Musk lies about something.
The discussion in the HoC yesterday was not particularly edifying, the Labour Front Bench's attempt to rewrite history, most of their MP's worrying about their trans-constituents, who haven't lost any rights, not their lesbian ones who would have had the decision gone the other way. There were however a few honourable exceptions, notably Tonia Antoniazzi, who campaigned on this when it was politically suicidal to do so, and an impressive contribution from a new MP:
https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1914753635059442129
On the bigotry point they shouldn't do it casually because it becomes obvious people do it simply because they dislike a judgement. They become enemies of the people, antibrexit etc, by presumption and so it means people dont interact with reality but the fantasy in their heads of heroes and villains. Its counterproductive.
DK and NOTA doing OK.
France has tended to be braver on a number of fiscal measures than us in recent years, after decades of surrendering repeatedly to interest groups and rioters. They’ve made big spending cuts, managed to get pension ages up, and hiked fuel duty massively. Pump prices are cheap currently, even there, so I expect they may come back for more.
Badenoch was on this years ahead of Labour, but much of the mess in the UK happened on their watch.
The SNP on the other hand were the only ones who pursued the TWAW logic to its destructive conclusion.
Any news from Nicola, who's still an elected politician, and just seen her totemic policy publicly trashed?
RN is not an insurgent like AfD or Reform. It’s part of the furniture now.
But France has a longer history than we do of parties morphing and rebirthing multiple times, Dr Who style.
Also their argument is helpfully summarised in a short 18 section passage in para 265 of the judgment. Para 264 is also useful.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2025/16.html
https://magazine.newstatesman.com/2025/04/23/labours-cynical-shift-on-biological-sex/content.html
Have you retracted them Cyclefree? I have searched all the news articles I could find, as did several others here & can find no mention anywhere of the behaviour you describe. Since it would have been so explosive, I have little doubt that right wing outlets would have made a huge deal of it (and rightly so in that case, frankly) but there appears to be nothing.
I seems to me that you have accused her of a crime. I don’t think an honest person would let that statement stand, if they knew it to be false. Obviously I apologise in advance if you have retracted them already, or if you can substantiate your remarks.
Love the Zoologist MP who doesn't understand genes.
Maybe ITV should make a drama about the case?
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf
Seems to be unending supply of 'yes' men/women in the US these days though.
Anyone can see what the law IS. They can just read it. the Supreme Court has given its opinion on what the law MEANS. Not the same thing at all. A different bunch of judges could have judged completely differently, and may do in a year or two, who knows?. And anybody can have an opinion, though obviously with different levels of information and legitimacy. Somebody's opinion has to be determinative, but, whatever the merits of this case, the idea that we all must just STFU and do what lawyers tell us, even if we know it is completely wrong, stifles democratic debate and legitimate protest.
After decades of experience with them, I hold the legal profession in contempt (unless I need them or they agree with me, obviously). With vanishingly few exceptions, they constantly opine about matters in which they have no expertise, or, often, interest, act as a cosy cartel, charge outrageous fees, are next to CEOs the profession with most psychopaths, and are staggeringly pompous and self-important as a profession, no matter how self-deprecating they can be as individuals.
An obvious example of their self-importance is the name - the Supreme Court. It is a a ghastly Blairite American import, and like most such (e.g. wokeness) completely unsuited to the conditions in this country. It implies, no states explicitly that the Court is supreme, whereas in fact it is subordinate to Parliament, which in turn is subordinate to the people.
But I suppose Provisional Interpreting Court S.T. Parliament and the People and Maybe a Few International Treaties doesn't quite have the same ring to it?
Just as "man" means (a) the human species and (b) an adult male of that species, in different contexts. Sometimes words have two meanings, to quote Iain Anderson
Albeit that Treasuries are suffering too, just not as much.
Both Jenrick and Badenoch spend too much time worrying about Reform and Nigel Farage rather than spelling out their vision – or narrative if you must – of Conservatism for the second quarter of the 21st Century. In short, what are the Tories for? What is the point of them?
Rory was once my MP. I wish he still was. He is rational, sane, sensible, consistent, moderate and articulate. He is no longer in power politics for exactly those reasons. But millions turn to him for articulate analysis of what is going on.
Starmer has hardly held firm on a single controverted issue. This is well documented. As a result he is PM. No-one listens to anything he says in the sort of way they listen to Rory; the whole thing is platitudinous, meaningless drivel. But he exercises power, and despite the moral bankruptcy of it, is OK. I have no idea what he thinks. perhaps he just doesn't.
Bagehot in the Economist said all this a few months ago, comparing these two same people.
To understand all this, don't start with Aristotle or John Rawls, start with Machiavelli. For the advanced course, start with Trump.
But as others have stated below, Starmer - holding a huge majority - could change the equalities law to make f2m transwomen have identical legal status and privileges as women if he wanted to. Personally it's not a route I'd advise but it's up to him really.
Nominated by Biden and with 34 GOP votes against her appointment she has effortlessly morphed into voting alongside Russia.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
National opinion polls before local elections, 2021 and 2025
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1914949248585437676
While the woke leftists and progressives who hate the judges gender recognition decision that a woman is born that way backed the judges on their Brexit decisions requiring Parliament to implement Brexit at each stage
We'll see how that plays out over the rest of this year.
But it now also puts him in a position to make significant bets on the dollar itself.
He's something of a quiet patriot, though, so I doubt he'll do a Soros on it.
While having huge sympathy with Cyclefree's article - hope all is going well on the medical front - this is how one segment of society operates these days. Take a stroll through central London any fine Saturday and you will see striped flags, whether they be pink, blue and white, or black, green and red, or indeed both.
People are angry and they are not too concerned about the minutiae of the issues they are angry about. It is what gives us Queers for Palestine because their world is a binary one of oppressed and oppressor.
While appreciating the very real concerns that Cyclefree articulates, I also feel sorry for the trans people quietly going about their business, who wouldn't want to cause offence or distress and just want to get on with being who they think they are.
What will have to happen now is a serious look at the provision of facilities for people who don’t conform to the norms.
So far KB is dealing with tough policy matters by delay, and apology for the Tory past, while saying she is setting out principles. She isn't doing this well because I have no idea what they are beyond motherhood and apple pie.
In reality she has hard choices to make. Like does she want the One Nation vote or the Farage vote.
But I agree our courts were even more clearly misnamed too.
Though we do need to look at the laws around gender recognition again, as a GRC seems pointless now.
I think too there will be problems of enforcement. Trans-people are not going away.
Thank-you for the header, Cyclefree. I trust you are recovering well (ish?).
So it certainly wasn't a widely used term, even if they were practically the supreme court (small s and small c).
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-employers-covering-up-abuse-1
She & my MP are working together to try and change the law on this topic.
Unprotected spaces are open to all.
There needs to be sex-neutral provisions available as well as, not instead of, single sex provisions.
In most public spaces nowadays the disabled toilet does this well, being sex neutral and often intended for more than just disabled people (eg many nowadays dual-purpose as baby changing facilities which suits their larger footprint that can fit a.baby changing table).
We need calm and sensible solutions instead of vitriol and whatabouterism.
I have enjoyed the people who so attacked the Supreme Court (“enemies of the people”) now saying how brilliant the Supreme Court are.