But it also shows why she has to resign. There’s no point in carrying on. If she tries to cling on she will become a huge focus of public anger, the “one rule for me” hypocrite who embodies Labour lies
Whether through malice or mistake she made an unforgivable error for a housing minister, and one with a history of calling Tories “tax cheats” and demanding they resign
BBC report: "Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is at risk of a fine from the tax authorities in addition to having to pay an additional £40,000 in underpaid stamp duty, tax experts have said."
Not sure that is survivable if it happens. She may be better off resigning, and generating some sympathy, rather than clinging on and being prised out of office. It's all a bit sad as I find it difficult to believe she was really seeking to cheat. She has an estimable back story and may well be able to rehabilitate herself in time. But she needs to act pdq.
As @leon says she is becoming a lightning rod and the public is pretty unforgiving with this sort of thing.
There are two "publics". The Tory and Reform public are baying for her blood. What a surprise. The Labour and LD public are broadly sympathetic, or at least, let's wait for the inquiry.
Reform and Tory supporters currently constitute about 45-50% of the country, Lab and LD about 35-40%
There’s your problem. Labour needs a lot of those “right wing” voters to come back, alienating them further means this becomes impossible
I don’t even see the point. It’s clearly a resigning issue, Rayner said it herself for years about Tory “tax cheats”. What’s more she’s housing minister - it’s completely unsustainable. How can she, say, increase housing taxes without meeting a calamitous wave of anger?
If she was a different minister - maybe. But she isn’t
If she stays she damages the government, and brings no benefit to her or to them - except I guess she keeps that bigger salary
For a political hack who makes a living, when they are not living it up at Raffles Hotel, writing political puff pieces for the house journal of the Conservative Party you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the current breakdown of left, right politics. I am not sure why you would leave the Green-Sultana Alliance and other left leaning nationalist parties out of your cabal of the left.
If you believe Ref and Con are indistinguishable from one another and should be considered as a single broad church grouping you may have a point.
Because I was replying to this claim:
"The Tory and Reform public are baying for her blood. What a surprise. The Labour and LD public are broadly sympathetic, or at least, let's wait for the inquiry."
But it also shows why she has to resign. There’s no point in carrying on. If she tries to cling on she will become a huge focus of public anger, the “one rule for me” hypocrite who embodies Labour lies
Whether through malice or mistake she made an unforgivable error for a housing minister, and one with a history of calling Tories “tax cheats” and demanding they resign
BBC report: "Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is at risk of a fine from the tax authorities in addition to having to pay an additional £40,000 in underpaid stamp duty, tax experts have said."
Not sure that is survivable if it happens. She may be better off resigning, and generating some sympathy, rather than clinging on and being prised out of office. It's all a bit sad as I find it difficult to believe she was really seeking to cheat. She has an estimable back story and may well be able to rehabilitate herself in time. But she needs to act pdq.
As @leon says she is becoming a lightning rod and the public is pretty unforgiving with this sort of thing.
There are two "publics". The Tory and Reform public are baying for her blood. What a surprise. The Labour and LD public are broadly sympathetic, or at least, let's wait for the inquiry.
Reform and Tory supporters currently constitute about 45-50% of the country, Lab and LD about 35-40%
There’s your problem. Labour needs a lot of those “right wing” voters to come back, alienating them further means this becomes impossible
I don’t even see the point. It’s clearly a resigning issue, Rayner said it herself for years about Tory “tax cheats”. What’s more she’s housing minister - it’s completely unsustainable. How can she, say, increase housing taxes without meeting a calamitous wave of anger?
If she was a different minister - maybe. But she isn’t
If she stays she damages the government, and brings no benefit to her or to them - except I guess she keeps that bigger salary
For a political hack who makes a living, when they are not living it up at Raffles Hotel, writing political puff pieces for the house journal of the Conservative Party you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the current breakdown of left, right politics. I am not sure why you would leave the Green-Sultana Alliance and other left leaning nationalist parties out of your cabal of the left.
If you believe Ref and Con are indistinguishable from one another and should be considered as a single broad church grouping you may have a point.
There’s a big difference between Ref and Con. One are a bunch of racists with wacky economic policies. The other is the Reform party.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.
A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.
A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?
What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.
What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.
I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".
There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.
So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.
The reverse side of the coin, to generalising about minority groups, because of the bad behaviour of some of their number, is denying that bad behaviour by some members of minority groups is a reality.
Hence, we ended up with police and social services turning a blind eye to teenagers being raped by grooming gangs, because they were mainly Pakistani, and Islington councillors, turning a blind eye to sex offenders working in their childrens' homes, because they were gay.
Whilst that is true, I think there are many in (say) the Muslim or black communities who have not exactly had a blind eye turned on them by the police. The Macpherson report is just a small part of it.
So we have some cases where the police and wider authorities turned a blind eye to certain crimes, and others where the police and wider authorities were actively racist regarding other crimes. Sometimes the same police.
I think that often it depends upon the degree of sympathy (or lack of sympathy), for the victims. I would say that there is an astonishing lack of official sympathy towards victims of sexual abuse, and prostitutes, from lower class backgrounds. And, all too often, child sexual abuse is treated as a peccadillo, rather than as a crime.
This is exaggerated Our prisons are filled with men serving long sentences for child sexual abuse. Two recent sentences I know of concerning situations I know about were both 16 years. To get a picture of the seriouslness it is treated have a look at the string of cases in the Court of Appeal in recent months.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
The point is that you don't know which man is a threat until it's too late, and so it's sensible to take some precautions on the basis that all men are a potential threat. Even you. Even me.
So then the question is, are trans women in the group called men, that are potential threats to women, or not? The answer of the Supreme Court, Cyclefree, gender critical feminists, terfs, and myself, is that trans women are, for this purpose, still men.
It's not that trans women, as a group, are more of a threat than cis men. Just that, for threat identification purposes, there's no reason to think that they're less of a threat, particularly if you allow self-ID.
I can’t understand why men need to threaten women. I can’t understand when people are racist. Sadly, it seems I am becoming a minority in both cases.
I can't understand What makes a man Hate another man Help me understand
People are people, so why should it be You and I should get along so awfully? People are people, so why should it be You and I should get along so awfully?
It's a shame Depeche Mode haven't performed this live since 1988.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
It's Farage. He arose out of the depths of the Savannab, his body that of an old lion, and his head that of the Churchill Insurance dog.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Too many people in this country this he's right. And they are not the people who pay much attention to Starmer, Davey etc. My neighbour, for one.
Its always the way - the public want to believe that the solution to all ills is simple. A politician who promises to solve those problems is on to a winner, right up to the point where they have to deliver...
We've seen that with Brexit. The EU was the cause of all out ills. Just leave and all will be roses. The worse mistake Leave ever made was to win the referendum.
We see in Scotland how the SNP has had a firm grip on Scottish politics for decades by not quiet getting over the line. That grievance is still there. Every ill can be blamed on Westminster (or just the English).
And now Reform is playing the same old tunes, just this time its all immigration. They had better beware they do not win...
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
Without getting too deeply into topics we should not discuss, I suspect there's another reason why certain crimes were put on the "too difficult" pile: that a few in the police, councils, social services and other agencies were involved in the abuse.
It doesn't take too many colleagues to be part of the issue for there to be pressure not to investigate. You don't dob in your mates or colleagues. Although from what I remember from one of the reports, some did try.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Quite right. Farage's utterances were nothing short of treasonous - diminishing us before our friends, delighting our enemies and giving legitimacy to every anti-British agenda across the globe. And all this just to crawl his way up the greasy pole. I suspect Farage is not long for this world politically anyway - nastier elements than him are just biding their time - but when he is swept away his betrayal of a nation will earn his epitaph no leniency.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
He probably blames the bastards that voted for that elected government.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
But it also shows why she has to resign. There’s no point in carrying on. If she tries to cling on she will become a huge focus of public anger, the “one rule for me” hypocrite who embodies Labour lies
Whether through malice or mistake she made an unforgivable error for a housing minister, and one with a history of calling Tories “tax cheats” and demanding they resign
BBC report: "Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner is at risk of a fine from the tax authorities in addition to having to pay an additional £40,000 in underpaid stamp duty, tax experts have said."
Not sure that is survivable if it happens. She may be better off resigning, and generating some sympathy, rather than clinging on and being prised out of office. It's all a bit sad as I find it difficult to believe she was really seeking to cheat. She has an estimable back story and may well be able to rehabilitate herself in time. But she needs to act pdq.
As @leon says she is becoming a lightning rod and the public is pretty unforgiving with this sort of thing.
There are two "publics". The Tory and Reform public are baying for her blood. What a surprise. The Labour and LD public are broadly sympathetic, or at least, let's wait for the inquiry.
Reform and Tory supporters currently constitute about 45-50% of the country, Lab and LD about 35-40%
There’s your problem. Labour needs a lot of those “right wing” voters to come back, alienating them further means this becomes impossible
I don’t even see the point. It’s clearly a resigning issue, Rayner said it herself for years about Tory “tax cheats”. What’s more she’s housing minister - it’s completely unsustainable. How can she, say, increase housing taxes without meeting a calamitous wave of anger?
If she was a different minister - maybe. But she isn’t
If she stays she damages the government, and brings no benefit to her or to them - except I guess she keeps that bigger salary
For a political hack who makes a living, when they are not living it up at Raffles Hotel, writing political puff pieces for the house journal of the Conservative Party you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the current breakdown of left, right politics. I am not sure why you would leave the Green-Sultana Alliance and other left leaning nationalist parties out of your cabal of the left.
If you believe Ref and Con are indistinguishable from one another and should be considered as a single broad church grouping you may have a point.
And in "if push came to shove" news,
By 43% to 37%, Britons would rather the next election resulted in a Labour government under Keir Starmer than a Reform UK government under Nigel Farage
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
He probably blames the bastards that voted for that elected government.
Voted for them on July 4th. Turned passionately against them at some point on July 5th.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
He probably blames the bastards that voted for that elected government.
Voted for them on July 4th. Turned passionately against them at some point on July 5th.
I’m picturing Alec Guinness staring at that bridge over the River Kwai as realisation washes over him. Leon may even have been wearing khaki.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
In both cases, they are still sizzle not sausage.
Until a politician says, "the government will no longer do big thing X that currently costs Y", they aren't really talking about spending cuts.
That rules out Triple Lock (unless you are going to wind pensions back to 2010+inflation). It rules out "government efficiency" (admin spend is a small percentage of the total.)
So say what real things won't happen any more, or will need to be paid for by users. Good luck getting elected afterwards.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
In both cases, they are still sizzle not sausage.
Until a politician says, "the government will no longer do big thing X that currently costs Y", they aren't really talking about spending cuts.
That rules out Triple Lock (unless you are going to wind pensions back to 2010+inflation). It rules out "government efficiency" (admin spend is a small percentage of the total.)
So say what real things won't happen any more, or will need to be paid for by users. Good luck getting elected afterwards.
We will get rid of waiting lists by abolishing the NHS. We will cut the education budget by closing all schools. That should save some money.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
I'm running in Banffshire and Buchan Coast where we got 3% last time. Mind you, Reform have been tipped to take it and they got 0% last time, so...
I will be largely campaigning online. With a megaphone. The only way to get heard in todays politics.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
The largest single group of people in receipt of benefits is white working class people. The constituencies with the highest number of people on sickness benefits are working class heavily white constituencies in ex industrial areas, where Reform has been picking up votes at Labour’s expense. Reform voters tend to be older voters in C2DE social classes, who are most likely to be welfare recipients. They will find it almost impossible to cut welfare without hurting their voters. Either their wealthy donors or their voters are going to be mightily pissed off by a Reform government's policies in this area.
@Andy_JS i think Reform could win Stopsley off the Lib Dem’s. It’s 75% white, lower middle class, but not posh, and has a village feel, separate from Luton.
I expect the Lib Dem vote is in reality, Not Labour.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.
A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.
A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?
What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.
What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.
I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".
There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.
So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.
The reverse side of the coin, to generalising about minority groups, because of the bad behaviour of some of their number, is denying that bad behaviour by some members of minority groups is a reality.
Hence, we ended up with police and social services turning a blind eye to teenagers being raped by grooming gangs, because they were mainly Pakistani, and Islington councillors, turning a blind eye to sex offenders working in their childrens' homes, because they were gay.
Whilst that is true, I think there are many in (say) the Muslim or black communities who have not exactly had a blind eye turned on them by the police. The Macpherson report is just a small part of it.
So we have some cases where the police and wider authorities turned a blind eye to certain crimes, and others where the police and wider authorities were actively racist regarding other crimes. Sometimes the same police.
I think that often it depends upon the degree of sympathy (or lack of sympathy), for the victims. I would say that there is an astonishing lack of official sympathy towards victims of sexual abuse, and prostitutes, from lower class backgrounds. And, all too often, child sexual abuse is treated as a peccadillo, rather than as a crime.
This last is certainly true. If you are found in possession of pictures of CSA, even of the worst most depraved type, you generally walk free from court. The excuses given and accepted for this depravity are astonishing: stress being a common one.
I have had some astonishingly stressful times in my life and have never felt compelled to commit any sort of crime let alone look at pictures of babies being raped. Perhaps the "stress" men suffer is specially bad in some way.
There is absolutely no capacity in the prison system to imprison everyone found in possession of CSA material: Unless & until we build a ton of prison capacity, these people will continue to walk free, because it is not in the public interest to imprison them in preference to others who the state deems more dangerous to the public or guilty of even worse crimes that are more deserving of imprisonment.
The state (rightly) gives out long sentences for those found guilty of physical abuse. If the government builds more prisons they might start giving out custodial sentences for possession as well, but until that time it isn’t going to happen.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
They're only "quasi-Marxist" if you're so far to the right as to be quasi-fascist.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
The parliamentary authorities have mounted a major investigation after a mobile phone was hidden in the Commons as part of a prank to broadcast sex noises during Prime Minister’s questions
The Times has been told that the phone was planted near the front bench and was intended to go off as Sir Keir Starmer faced Kemi Badenoch in the Commons. It was due to play a sexually explicit audio recording
The phone was found during a routine sweep before Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. There was no clear footage of the mobile being planted
The incident is being treated seriously as it represents a major breach of parliamentary security
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
The parliamentary authorities have mounted a major investigation after a mobile phone was hidden in the Commons as part of a prank to broadcast sex noises during Prime Minister’s questions
The Times has been told that the phone was planted near the front bench and was intended to go off as Sir Keir Starmer faced Kemi Badenoch in the Commons. It was due to play a sexually explicit audio recording
The phone was found during a routine sweep before Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. There was no clear footage of the mobile being planted
The incident is being treated seriously as it represents a major breach of parliamentary security
List vote: 🟡 SNP 32% (-8) 🌹 LAB 16% (-2) ➡️ REF UK 16% (+16) 🔶 LIB DEM 14% (+9) 🌳 CON 12% (-11) 🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
Change with 2021 SPE
Could very very easily see regional seats almost identical for Lab, Ref, LD, Con with all 4 of them fighting for 2nd to 5th places Constituency efforts could make all the difference
You'd probably want your list vote very very evenly spread if that were the overall result
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
Except if Labour and the Tories were destroyed that makes real quasi Marxists ie Corbyn's new party and Polanski's Greens, the main alternative to Reform
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
The largest single group of people in receipt of benefits is white working class people. The constituencies with the highest number of people on sickness benefits are working class heavily white constituencies in ex industrial areas, where Reform has been picking up votes at Labour’s expense. Reform voters tend to be older voters in C2DE social classes, who are most likely to be welfare recipients. They will find it almost impossible to cut welfare without hurting their voters. Either their wealthy donors or their voters are going to be mightily pissed off by a Reform government's policies in this area.
The American answer is to just borrow more, but that won't work here.
And even if Reform's management wants to cut WWC benefits, how do they get that past of the Barry Redwalls on their back benches?
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
The largest single group of people in receipt of benefits is white working class people. The constituencies with the highest number of people on sickness benefits are working class heavily white constituencies in ex industrial areas, where Reform has been picking up votes at Labour’s expense. Reform voters tend to be older voters in C2DE social classes, who are most likely to be welfare recipients. They will find it almost impossible to cut welfare without hurting their voters. Either their wealthy donors or their voters are going to be mightily pissed off by a Reform government's policies in this area.
Most of those who are unemployed and out of work sick and on benefits will still be voting Labour or for the Greens or Corbyn's new party not Reform.
Thanks Cyclefree. Much appreciate the article as always.
One thing that came to mind when reading your article was a passage in one of the Harry Potter books.
The Prime Minister gazed hopelessly at the pair of them for a moment, then the words he had fought to suppress all evening burst from him at last. “But for heaven’s sake — you’re wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out — well — anything!” Scrimgeour turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, “The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, Prime Minister.
This issue isn't completely a men vs women issue. There are women who disagree with you too.
I think this is an issue where democracy has really struggled. The role of democracy is to be a peaceful way for societies to manage and resolve conflicts. But the public debate on this issue has been incredibly toxic and extreme.
But maybe that's just social media in general. For the last couple of days I've had a ferocious argument on Reddit with supposed lefties supporting Russia.
This is an interesting point you make. But it's not that democracy has struggled. Rather it is that the normal democratic processes were deliberately subverted. We had 2 pieces of legislation - the GRA and the Equality Act and they broadly worked. They were debated in Parliament. But the subversion was the deliberate decision to try and introduce self-ID in practice (despite it not being lawful) in secret and without debate. The "No Debate" was a calculated step to prevent the normal democratic processes, discussion, scrutiny etc. This was done by lobbyists. They even got lawyers to set out how to do it. They knew that if they were open about what it would mean they would not get it through. So they lied and tried to push it through in an underhand and dishonest way. Rather than have democracy we had capture of public organisations by lobbyists, paid money from campaigning groups in the US and money from organisations seeking brownie points for agreeing to their wilful and flagrant misrepresentation of the law. It was about as disgraceful an example of anti-democratic grifting and abuse of charitable status as you are likely to see.
And when women found out and started asking questions etc they were insulted and attacked and smeared and bullied and all the rest of it. It was the secrecy, the dishonesty and the bullying of opponents which has made this toxic. If this had been addressed properly it likely would not have been. And that is why a recent YouGov poll has shown that the more people have learnt about what TRAs have demanded the less they have approved. Sunlight and scrutiny have turned people away from the ludicrous and excessive demands of the lobbyists. They have not turned away from the belief that people with gender dysphoria should have rights. But they have turned away from the idea that males with fetishes about dressing up as women (the 2 are not the same and should never have been pushed together under the "trans" umbrella) should be able to impose those on women or deny women privacy and security.
I broadly think that the 2 Acts get the balance right between trans rights and women's rights. They do so on the basis - which is factually correct - that sex cannot be changed, that single sex spaces, associations and services must be on the basis of sex and that dysphoric people - carefully construed - should be afforded the same rights as others to enable them to live their lives. Beyond that it is live and let live. But the lobbyists - for a variety of reasons - would not let that be enough. They have campaigned and are still campaigning to abolish women's rights and to remove sex as a relevant factor in law and public policy. It is delusional and dangerous and for as long as they do that in the manner they have been doing this debate will continue to be toxic.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
Answer the question at the end
Who is Thatcher in this dialectic?
It's NOT
Badenoch Jenrick Farage Corbyn
I met Richard Tice recently and it's an interesting question, what kind of economic programme Reform would follow. Clearly he at least is pitching for the Thatcherite mantle, talking up huge cuts to spending and taxes. But their prospectus is full of holes, built on straw men and fictitious numbers. If you probe it's clear there is no joined up plan, and there's an unpleasant tendency to rubbish anyone who questions their figures. An ugly populism that's a million miles from Thatcher. I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Most Reform voters are small businessman or white working class or lower middle class private sector workers so not on welfare. Though Farage has said he will oppose a 2 child benefit cap.
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
The largest single group of people in receipt of benefits is white working class people. The constituencies with the highest number of people on sickness benefits are working class heavily white constituencies in ex industrial areas, where Reform has been picking up votes at Labour’s expense. Reform voters tend to be older voters in C2DE social classes, who are most likely to be welfare recipients. They will find it almost impossible to cut welfare without hurting their voters. Either their wealthy donors or their voters are going to be mightily pissed off by a Reform government's policies in this area.
I would not be surprised if more UC recipients support Reform than Labour. The UK basically reflects the US now; traditional Republicans (Conservatives) have been replaced by the poor and techbros.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
I wish you could replace this strident ethno-nationalism with the sort of quiet abiding love of Britain come fair weather or foul that I have. It's a far less punishing mindset.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
I'm afraid I cannot agree with this sentiment. The present government is more inconsistent with what I consider good about the UK really than any since 1685. It would be a cheap hit to point out the Weimar republic after Hitler had taken charge but what about say France after Louis Napoleon had seised control. Or Russia now. I do not think for one minute that Starmer will not relinquish power in due course but I suspect that will be because he couldn't retain power rather than the lack of a secret hidden inner aspiration even if hidden from himself. His if you aren't with us then fuck off speech in the first week was a new low in British Politics and should never be forgiven. I suspect that five years ago Starmer himself would have recoiled at having either a Deputy or a Chancellor so compromised. Of course these are only the first most tenantive steps on the road to autocracy. I'm sure others will counter with cries of Thatcher but no, she revered the institutions of the UK more deeply even than the family who are nominally in charge.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
Weirdly, that looks like it's entirely Slab > Ref.
Feels like the SNP could be quite lucky at Holyrood 2026. Their primary vote is sharply down, which would normally mean heavy losses, but Con and Lab are also down. This means the SNP could hold their own in the constituencies by picking up all the SCON seats even if they lose a few to SLAB and SLD. This then makes them the largest party by far, even if they win few list seats again due to the imbalance between constituency and list. Then it's whether they make it up with the Greens or try and do a deal with SLAB
Forget left and right for a moment. Only Reform are providing an energetic opposition to the incumbent government. The Lib Dems and Greens really need to up their game.
Janan Ganesh’s latest article in the FT makes a Marxist case that Sir Keir is the perfect ‘end of an era’ figure before the public do an about turn
I think Johnson's success in 2019, and Corbyn's (relative to expectations) success in 2017 demonstrate that the public have been ready for an epoch-changing figure for a while, but that doesn't magic a capable one into the leadership of a political party.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
I'm running in Banffshire and Buchan Coast where we got 3% last time. Mind you, Reform have been tipped to take it and they got 0% last time, so...
I will be largely campaigning online. With a megaphone. The only way to get heard in todays politics.
Hint. Stop the boats could be misconstrued in Fraserburgh and Peterhead.
Mm, if the SLDs keep going at that rate we'll have RP as a MSP. Already better than the Scons. And in barking distance of Slab on the list. Will depend how many constituency MSPs of each party there are, obvs.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.
A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.
A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?
What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.
What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.
I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".
There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.
So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.
The reverse side of the coin, to generalising about minority groups, because of the bad behaviour of some of their number, is denying that bad behaviour by some members of minority groups is a reality.
Hence, we ended up with police and social services turning a blind eye to teenagers being raped by grooming gangs, because they were mainly Pakistani, and Islington councillors, turning a blind eye to sex offenders working in their childrens' homes, because they were gay.
Whilst that is true, I think there are many in (say) the Muslim or black communities who have not exactly had a blind eye turned on them by the police. The Macpherson report is just a small part of it.
So we have some cases where the police and wider authorities turned a blind eye to certain crimes, and others where the police and wider authorities were actively racist regarding other crimes. Sometimes the same police.
I think that often it depends upon the degree of sympathy (or lack of sympathy), for the victims. I would say that there is an astonishing lack of official sympathy towards victims of sexual abuse, and prostitutes, from lower class backgrounds. And, all too often, child sexual abuse is treated as a peccadillo, rather than as a crime.
The police, for understandable psychological reasons, have a tendency to quickly categorise people into one of two groups. Either you are a decent person or you are a wrong 'un*.
Lower class victims of sexual abuse are often seen as troublemakers and the author of their own misfortune, and so the police classify them as wrong 'uns, and they aren't interested in helping.
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.
A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.
A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?
What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.
What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.
I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".
There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.
So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.
The reverse side of the coin, to generalising about minority groups, because of the bad behaviour of some of their number, is denying that bad behaviour by some members of minority groups is a reality.
Hence, we ended up with police and social services turning a blind eye to teenagers being raped by grooming gangs, because they were mainly Pakistani, and Islington councillors, turning a blind eye to sex offenders working in their childrens' homes, because they were gay.
Whilst that is true, I think there are many in (say) the Muslim or black communities who have not exactly had a blind eye turned on them by the police. The Macpherson report is just a small part of it.
So we have some cases where the police and wider authorities turned a blind eye to certain crimes, and others where the police and wider authorities were actively racist regarding other crimes. Sometimes the same police.
I think that often it depends upon the degree of sympathy (or lack of sympathy), for the victims. I would say that there is an astonishing lack of official sympathy towards victims of sexual abuse, and prostitutes, from lower class backgrounds. And, all too often, child sexual abuse is treated as a peccadillo, rather than as a crime.
The police, for understandable psychological reasons, have a tendency to quickly categorise people into one of two groups. Either you are a decent person or you are a wrong 'un*.
Lower class victims of sexual abuse are often seen as troublemakers and the author of their own misfortune, and so the police classify them as wrong 'uns, and they aren't interested in helping.
There's the possibility that some may be troublemakers, the author of their own misfortune, and even wrong 'uns.
But still be victims of a serious crime, worthy of having justice.
It's remarkable, to me, how little flak Farage has received over his USA visit. Going over there and slagging off his own country, comparing us to North Korea, and urging a foreign state to interfere in our affairs would have attracted the intense wrath of all 'patriots' had an equivalent action been taken by, say, Corbyn or Starmer when in opposition. And doing so when Parliament has just started its new session and he should be there representing his own party and the people of Clacton compounds the sin.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
Because a lot of us no longer feel loyalty to the British state, which seeks to punish us for the tiniest infringement, even as it prioritises the welfare of foreigners, then royally lies about it, with super injunctions. We don't respect a state which allows in 40,000 young foreign men of fighting age every year, and puts them in 4 star hotels we pay for. We don't respect a British state that won't deport foreign rapists and murderers and violent robbers because they might have a hard time at home, or they don't like flying, of their children can't get chicken nuggets, or they might end up in an unpleasant prison back home because they are indeed rapists
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
Odd sort of patriot whose love of country can't survive an elected government not to their taste.
What are you talking about, you nitwit. I blame this almost as much on the Tories as on Labour. We have been governed by a quasi-Marxist Britain-hating blob for twenty years or more, and the Tories did precisely zip to roll it back, and arguably made it worse. Plus, the Boriswave
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
Great to see @Cyclefree back. I hope things are going well for you.
But this is a polemic, not an argument. Today I am starting another trial about domestic violence. The accused, a man of course, has been in custody since March 2024 for this awaiting trial. It is simply false to say that violence against women is not taken seriously. I am taking it seriously. Today.
With great respect and despite your valiant efforts, this is not true.
There have been many many examples of trans activists threatening women with violence and the police have done fuck all about them. It is the contrast with how they have behaved in this case, which is striking, something utterly ignored by the Met Commissioner.
The Met promised after the Everard murder to take incidents of indecent exposure more seriously. Instead police action on this has gone down. Read the Femicide Census for the women murdered in 2022 - out a few days ago. The perpetrators have been caught and convicted. But in so many of the cases, there were lots of warnings which were ignored. If they hadn't been women would still be alive. The same lessons are ignored over and over again. The number of women killed stays the same year after year - one every 3 days on average, every year.
This does not speak to me of a society taking this seriously, frankly.
Surely the threat against women - as the Sarah Everard murder demonstrates - is men?
I don't understand why all of the focus goes onto a handful of edge cases so that little light is shone onto the vast majority of cases where the person abusing / raping / killing a woman is a cis man. Usually a white cis man. Same thing with this nonsense about wanting to persecute men with brown skin because they are all potential threats to women. With 40% of the organisers of one protest carrying convictions for assaulting women.
I am bored of the trans issue simply because extremists on both sides shriek abuse at each other. We all want to protect women - my wife is pretty strident on the topic. But the threat to her or to my 14 year old daughter isn't a trans woman, it's a man.
Edge cases, eh!
Well, let's see: the reason this matters is because the spread of this ideology has led to a KC in a Scottish employment tribunal argue that employers have a legal duty to force women to get undressed in front of men - physically intact heterosexual married men who claim to be women - regardless of their own wishes and how uncomfortable they feel. She argues that employers have a duty to force women to endure a criminal offence - voyeurism or indecent exposure because to object is "bigotry". This employer, BTW, is the NHS in Scotland and the case is the Sandie Peggie case.
And if this reasoning is adopted then women will not be able to say no to this.
What this is about and what you and others refuse to get is that this is about whether a woman's No means No. It's about respecting women and their wishes and understanding that a man's demands do not override her consent. It's about understanding that a woman is entitled to have boundaries and have those respected as of right. It's about understanding that a woman because she is a woman has rights and they are not to be ignored because of a man's feelings. It's about understanding that a woman is a material reality based on sex - not on feelings or costumes or identification - and that if you don't understand or respect those basic facts and that being of the female sex underlies every aspect of a female's life from birth to death: her life, her opportunities, her health, whether she is listened to or valued, her jobs, her safety, her position in society, everything then you are part of the problems and obstacles which so often make life much harder for women than it ought to be.
Women's rights matter. If men can call themselves women, women no longer have any rights as women. The oppression women face because of our sex and largely perpetrated by men and for the benefit of men cannot be dealt with if women are classified as some sort of fuzzy 'anyone can join in if they feel like it' group.
You argue very passionately Cyclefree and often I agree with what you say. Sometimes though I think back to my experience of being an outed gay boy at school and remember how I felt and was treated. I remember boys saying they didn't want to share a changing room with me because I might be looking at their junk. As if I was interested in every spotty thug just because I was gay. If I'd been running around with an erection trying to get off with them they might have had a point but of course I just wanted to get PE over and done with. I understand your points about women's rights and I don't disagree but I feel queasy about the view propounded by Linehan and co (which I fully accept may not be your views) that any trans woman in a female changing room is automatically committing a violent act.
My son is gay so through him I understand a little of what you must have felt.
A man who goes into a women's space is breaching boundaries. He should not be there. His presence is not physical violence but it may well be unsettling and scary - depending on his size, attitude, behaviour and also how a woman feels.
A woman faced with such a man has to make an instant calculation about the potential threat. It is automatic - just as it is when you hear a man following you in the streets late at night (man just going home like me or trouble?). It's not just the threat. Why is he here? To have a w**k? To mark his territory? To intimidate? What? Why should a woman using the loo have to go through this?
What if it's a changing room and he starts to look? Not physical violence. But voyeurism and deeply unsettling. I do not want to get undressed in front of any man other than my husband. Even in hospital male doctors and nurses give me privacy.
What if he gets undressed? Again not physical violence but unsettling and frightening. Indecent exposure is horrible for women. The presence of an unwanted male body in a situation of vulnerability is a form of assault even if the man never touches the woman. This is something which men simply do not get about indecent exposure.
I think there is a total lack of empathy for how women feel by men who claim to be women. If they really had a female sensibility they would try and understand how and why their presence is unsettling and can be very frightening. Instead, far too often, far too many of them behave exactly like the sort of men who most women will classify as "creeps".
There is a reason why we have boundaries. Men - of whatever type - should respect those of women. Just as I, a woman, would not walk into a man's changing room or loo even though I would be no threat. It is a matter of respect. And of course a trans-identified man who does not wish to share a space with fellow men should have his own private space. But I note that when these are offered, they are rejected. They want to be in women's spaces regardless of women's say-so and this is an aggressive (and, frankly, very male) attitude to take.
So I'd use the phrase "aggressive and disrespectful" rather than violent.
The reverse side of the coin, to generalising about minority groups, because of the bad behaviour of some of their number, is denying that bad behaviour by some members of minority groups is a reality.
Hence, we ended up with police and social services turning a blind eye to teenagers being raped by grooming gangs, because they were mainly Pakistani, and Islington councillors, turning a blind eye to sex offenders working in their childrens' homes, because they were gay.
Whilst that is true, I think there are many in (say) the Muslim or black communities who have not exactly had a blind eye turned on them by the police. The Macpherson report is just a small part of it.
So we have some cases where the police and wider authorities turned a blind eye to certain crimes, and others where the police and wider authorities were actively racist regarding other crimes. Sometimes the same police.
I think that often it depends upon the degree of sympathy (or lack of sympathy), for the victims. I would say that there is an astonishing lack of official sympathy towards victims of sexual abuse, and prostitutes, from lower class backgrounds. And, all too often, child sexual abuse is treated as a peccadillo, rather than as a crime.
The police, for understandable psychological reasons, have a tendency to quickly categorise people into one of two groups. Either you are a decent person or you are a wrong 'un*.
Lower class victims of sexual abuse are often seen as troublemakers and the author of their own misfortune, and so the police classify them as wrong 'uns, and they aren't interested in helping.
Unbelievable was a good (fictionalised, but loosely based on earlier events) illustration of such a scenario.
Comments
"The Tory and Reform public are baying for her blood. What a surprise.
The Labour and LD public are broadly sympathetic, or at least, let's wait for the inquiry."
Next
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Fear ye, fear ye.
If the press won't do it, it's high time Labour, Lib Dems and the rest go on the attack and slaughter him (metaphorically, of course).
I'd say follow the money, though. Like with Trump, Reform views politics as a game for rich and powerful men, and they will follow policies aimed at enriching those people. So I'd expect big tax cuts funded by big cuts to the welfare state as well as higher borrowing. There's an obvious tension here given whose votes they will be elected on. 12% of working age people in Tice's constituency are on sickness benefit, double the rate of the inner London constituency where I live. There is no path to cutting the welfare state that doesn't hurt Reform voters disproportionately. The bet I suppose will be that their voters can be assuaged with performative cruelty against refugees etc. Maybe they're right.
Its always the way - the public want to believe that the solution to all ills is simple. A politician who promises to solve those problems is on to a winner, right up to the point where they have to deliver...
We've seen that with Brexit. The EU was the cause of all out ills. Just leave and all will be roses. The worse mistake Leave ever made was to win the referendum.
We see in Scotland how the SNP has had a firm grip on Scottish politics for decades by not quiet getting over the line. That grievance is still there. Every ill can be blamed on Westminster (or just the English).
And now Reform is playing the same old tunes, just this time its all immigration. They had better beware they do not win...
Fuck the British state, Go Nigel
It doesn't take too many colleagues to be part of the issue for there to be pressure not to investigate. You don't dob in your mates or colleagues. Although from what I remember from one of the reports, some did try.
https://x.com/holyrooddaily/status/1963514230667104552?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
All over for Anas4FM as well it would appear.
https://x.com/electpoliticsuk/status/1963577139397038463?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Badenoch is the one promising Milei style spending cuts so on a national level Kemi is closest to Thatcherism, though Farage is offering DOGE style cuts locally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKux6kpXW8A
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-stopsley-luton-by
72% of 2024 LDs and 67% of Green voters prefer a Starmer to a Farage government, 63% of 2024 Tories prefer a Farage to a Starmer government
https://youtu.be/TlvKydE0EVA?si=SJ7j8TlK73ez0PyX
Until a politician says, "the government will no longer do big thing X that currently costs Y", they aren't really talking about spending cuts.
That rules out Triple Lock (unless you are going to wind pensions back to 2010+inflation). It rules out "government efficiency" (admin spend is a small percentage of the total.)
So say what real things won't happen any more, or will need to be paid for by users. Good luck getting elected afterwards.
I await someone to say "free speech, innit"
We will cut the education budget by closing all schools.
That should save some money.
Labour 19%
Tories 17%
LD 13%
Grn 11%
Source - FindOutNow
3 September 2025"
https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1963581639587414073
I will be largely campaigning online. With a megaphone. The only way to get heard in todays politics.
I’m sure he’ll make a beautifully dressed corpse.
I expect the Lib Dem vote is in reality, Not Labour.
Labour + 1
Conservative +2
Lib Dems - same
The state (rightly) gives out long sentences for those found guilty of physical abuse. If the government builds more prisons they might start giving out custodial sentences for possession as well, but until that time it isn’t going to happen.
It's why I want Labour AND the Tories destroyed at the next GE
https://x.com/scotnational/status/1963575526305493078?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
EXCLUSIVE:
The parliamentary authorities have mounted a major investigation after a mobile phone was hidden in the Commons as part of a prank to broadcast sex noises during Prime Minister’s questions
The Times has been told that the phone was planted near the front bench and was intended to go off as Sir Keir Starmer faced Kemi Badenoch in the Commons. It was due to play a sexually explicit audio recording
The phone was found during a routine sweep before Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. There was no clear footage of the mobile being planted
The incident is being treated seriously as it represents a major breach of parliamentary security
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1963596855691952510
SNP: 31% (+1)
REF: 21% (+14)
LAB: 17% (-18)
CON: 11% (-2)
LDM: 11% (+1)
GRN: 6% (+2)
Via @Moreincommon_, On 21 August-1 September,
Changes w/ GE2024
Weirdly, that looks like it's entirely Slab > Ref.
🟡 SNP 32% (-8)
🌹 LAB 16% (-2)
➡️ REF UK 16% (+16)
🔶 LIB DEM 14% (+9)
🌳 CON 12% (-11)
🌍 GREEN 8% (nc)
Change with 2021 SPE
Could very very easily see regional seats almost identical for Lab, Ref, LD, Con with all 4 of them fighting for 2nd to 5th places
Constituency efforts could make all the difference
You'd probably want your list vote very very evenly spread if that were the overall result
Labour 21.3 (-2.8)
Con 17.4 (-4.6)
Ref 30.9 (+5.8)
LD 13.2 (-0.4)
Green 8.4 (-0.4)
And even if Reform's management wants to cut WWC benefits, how do they get that past of the Barry Redwalls on their back benches?
Reform are pledged to the state pension
NEW THREAD
And when women found out and started asking questions etc they were insulted and attacked and smeared and bullied and all the rest of it. It was the secrecy, the dishonesty and the bullying of opponents which has made this toxic. If this had been addressed properly it likely would not have been. And that is why a recent YouGov poll has shown that the more people have learnt about what TRAs have demanded the less they have approved. Sunlight and scrutiny have turned people away from the ludicrous and excessive demands of the lobbyists. They have not turned away from the belief that people with gender dysphoria should have rights. But they have turned away from the idea that males with fetishes about dressing up as women (the 2 are not the same and should never have been pushed together under the "trans" umbrella) should be able to impose those on women or deny women privacy and security.
I broadly think that the 2 Acts get the balance right between trans rights and women's rights. They do so on the basis - which is factually correct - that sex cannot be changed, that single sex spaces, associations and services must be on the basis of sex and that dysphoric people - carefully construed - should be afforded the same rights as others to enable them to live their lives. Beyond that it is live and let live. But the lobbyists - for a variety of reasons - would not let that be enough. They have campaigned and are still campaigning to abolish women's rights and to remove sex as a relevant factor in law and public policy. It is delusional and dangerous and for as long as they do that in the manner they have been doing this debate will continue to be toxic.
Lower class victims of sexual abuse are often seen as troublemakers and the author of their own misfortune, and so the police classify them as wrong 'uns, and they aren't interested in helping.
But still be victims of a serious crime, worthy of having justice.