As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
Please don't talk about people on here in a collective way. It pisses me off to have views assigned to me that I don't share. I still think the Ukraine War is by far the more important conduct, which is one reason why the Iran War is such a colossal mistake - it distracts from Ukraine and makes it harder for Ukraine to win.
If there are some posters on here who fit your description have the courage to name them directly, rather than using a group description that encompasses all of those who are strong supporters of Ukraine.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
Surely you could be a group for the female gender, rather than sex
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
The example of an idiot sticking a large number of other people’s dicks in a blender, is not one to be copied.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
If they accept males then they cease to be a women's group.
Groups should be free to choose who they accept, within the law, absolutely. I am perfectly OK with that.
Scouts accept girls who want to join. I can see absolutely no reason for Guides to reject young boys who want to join the Guides, however they have chosen to do that.
That is their choice, which as a small state social liberal I think they are and should be free to make, even if I don't agree with it.
Back to the WI. It wishes to continue as it has been for many years - an organisation for women including trans women. Under the position you support it cannot do this. It must either stop being a women's organisation and accept men or it must exclude trans women and be for biological women only.
I get what you're saying. It's nice and clear as I know you like to be. But if you're able to view this as a 'small state socially liberal' position, well that's impressive and you should find out when auditions start for the gymnastics at the next Olympics. Men's gymnastics, I hasten to add. Must have fairness in elite sport.
If they were to desire to be an organisation for women and trans women then I would have no objection to that, its their organisation, their choice.
As far as I am aware there is no law or court case that has said they must be for women only.
They have chosen their membership criteria independently.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
Except that energy facilities, with the exception of specifically-protected ones like dams and nuclear, have been consistently targeted since then too, since they still provide legitimate military necessity.
In Korea and Vietnam the energy facilities were consistently targeted.
In the Gulf War the coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq's electricity grid. Justified because electricity is essential to command, control and weapons production.
NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia included heavy and targeted bombardment of Serbia's electrical infrastructure.
If it is proportionate to reopening the Strait then it is a legitimate military objective, under dual-use principles.
It’s stretching the definition of dual use.
There has been huge criticism of putin targeting Ukraine’s civilian power infrastructure. It has been considered a war crime.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
Surely you could be a group for the female gender, rather than sex
I guess not because that's what they were and now can't be.
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
The example of an idiot sticking a large number of other people’s dicks in a blender, is not one to be copied.
It is the only way to have a chance of regime change though unless mass opposition to the regime on the streets which is no longer the case it seems in Iran air strikes alone will not work
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
I have no skin in this game and the header is comprehensive and the legal summary is very clear
On that basis I can't help fearing the law might be an ass. As @Stuartinromford suggested most sensible people would be of the opinion "live and let live". Whatever floats one's boat but I think there should be a significant distinction between someone undertaking transformative surgery and hormone therapy and Isla Bryson.
For decades no one minded James Morris transitioning to Jan. There was a trans glamour model called Tula in the 1970s who was often draped over a pimped car on the cover of Custom Car magazine or page 3 of the Sun. No one cared.
People like Isla Bryson have poisoned the well for those without ulterior criminal motivations.
Possibly the biggest mistake in the law was to say (with good intentions) that surgery was not required to be trans and get a GRA.
If only post-op individuals were being discussed, I think the debate would be much calmer. In fact I doubt there'd ever have been much of a debate.
Unintended consequences has meant that tightening up against abuse has meant safeguarding people who were legitimate.
I think the problem here, as cyclefree normally points out, is that the ECHR has adjudicated that you cannot make surgery a condition for people obtaining rights. As a statement in isolation that makes complete sense. It would be kinda barbaric to make rights conditional on having surgery.
But that directly conflicts with what I otherwise would agree is a commonsense place to draw the line - that to all intents and purposes we can treat a post-op individual as their chosen gender, while there are a limited number of safeguarding situations that demand different treatment for pre-op individuals (but, still, in the vast number of circumstances it doesn't matter what sex/gender someone is, so it doesn't matter if they're trans).
I honestly do not know how you resolve this conflict. Everything would be a lot simpler if there weren't so many men who were a violent risk to women, so perhaps dealing with that would be a good place to start.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
Except that energy facilities, with the exception of specifically-protected ones like dams and nuclear, have been consistently targeted since then too, since they still provide legitimate military necessity.
In Korea and Vietnam the energy facilities were consistently targeted.
In the Gulf War the coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq's electricity grid. Justified because electricity is essential to command, control and weapons production.
NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia included heavy and targeted bombardment of Serbia's electrical infrastructure.
If it is proportionate to reopening the Strait then it is a legitimate military objective, under dual-use principles.
It’s stretching the definition of dual use.
There has been huge criticism of putin targeting Ukraine’s civilian power infrastructure. It has been considered a war crime.
But now Trump has done the same
That's standard irregular verb behaviour.
I have long considered Putin's regular deliberate bombing of civilians to be the war crime, not his targeting of infrastructure, which is something we have done in virtually every war we have ever engaged in.
To the best of my knowledge the only major conflict the west has ever engaged in post-WWII which has not seen energy targeted was 2003's Iraq War - where it was a matter of policy not to do so, because the invasion was planning to take over the running of those facilities so there was a desire not to damage them.
There is no other conflict ever that I can think of, not even the bombing of Yugoslavia, where energy has been spared on the basis of "civilian use".
Precedence says that energy is dual/military use so can be proportionate. If this is the best, proportionate, way to get Iran to surrender and open the Strait then it is proportionate under the law and nearly 8 decades of precedence.
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
The example of an idiot sticking a large number of other people’s dicks in a blender, is not one to be copied.
It is the only way to have a chance of regime change though unless mass opposition to the regime on the streets which is no longer the case it seems in Iran air strikes alone will not work
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
The example of an idiot sticking a large number of other people’s dicks in a blender, is not one to be copied.
It is the only way to have a chance of regime change though unless mass opposition to the regime on the streets which is no longer the case it seems in Iran air strikes alone will not work
When in a hole
1) stop digging
Or
2) hire Bagger 288
Many people think that 1) is a better option
If you attack a country to get regime change you need to see it through
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.
This is approaching Russian logic.
Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.
It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.
Except I am right.
As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.
It is one of those irregular verbs again.
I know people on here don’t like facts but I thought this link was interesting (haven’t read it in full yet). It draws a distinction between Putin’s targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and Ukraine’s targeting of oil facilities in Russia.
I don’t know enough of the detail to form a view on which side of the line Iran is, but suffice to say that there is a line and Ukraine and Russia are on different sides of it
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
Implication of this:
Any women's group, regardless of what it's about or what it does, MUST exclude trans women whether they want to or not. They are only permitted to include trans women if they also include men - ie if they cease to be a women's group.
I'm surprised a small state social liberal like you would be happy with that. But ok.
If they accept males then they cease to be a women's group.
Groups should be free to choose who they accept, within the law, absolutely. I am perfectly OK with that.
Scouts accept girls who want to join. I can see absolutely no reason for Guides to reject young boys who want to join the Guides, however they have chosen to do that.
That is their choice, which as a small state social liberal I think they are and should be free to make, even if I don't agree with it.
Back to the WI. It wishes to continue as it has been for many years - an organisation for women including trans women. Under the position you support it cannot do this. It must either stop being a women's organisation and accept men or it must exclude trans women and be for biological women only.
I get what you're saying. It's nice and clear as I know you like to be. But if you're able to view this as a 'small state socially liberal' position, well that's impressive and you should find out when auditions start for the gymnastics at the next Olympics. Men's gymnastics, I hasten to add. Must have fairness in elite sport.
If they were to desire to be an organisation for women and trans women then I would have no objection to that, its their organisation, their choice.
As far as I am aware there is no law or court case that has said they must be for women only.
They have chosen their membership criteria independently.
That's the "policeman in your head" problem.
We don't know what legal advice the WI and Girlguiding have had. It might be as grim as "not entirely hypothetical organisations with access to lots of money could take you to court if your boundary line for membership is 'cis women and trans women'. They will keep at this until you run out of money, and you will run out of money before them."
Hence the decisions those organisations have made. It's not pretty, it's not how we like to think the law works, but it's legal realpolitik.
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
Heather Cox Richardson summarising very well the makeup and motivation of the segments of Trump's movement (America Firsters, Tech Bros, White Nationalists etc), and the tensions in the coalition at present, in the first part of this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_XTNM05oKQ
A short (15 min) piece from the Rest is Politics US, which amongst other things states that there are a number of Republicans in the Senate who would vote "guilty" if Trump were to be impeached, in a conversation about the Save America Act, which is about preventing some people from voting: "Trump's NEFARIOUS Plan To RIG ELECTIONS Explained" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vP72-SFqQs
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
As might be expected from the calibre of the cardboard cut-outs that promulgate it, the good guys/bad guys school of conflict analysis is utter wank. As far as nation states are concerned, it's our guys and the other guys. These categories are fungible, mutable and subject to tervigersation.
Apparently all that needs to happen is for Iran to surrender unconditionally to the aggressor. I know that. I read it here. I’m amazed they haven’t.
Our armchair brigade have forgotten all about the Ukraine conflict too now they have a new one. Poor old Zelensky
I dk t know about Ukraine/armchairs - @Dura_Ace constructed an argument for the war requiring regime change. In Ukraine.
Putin was at least willing to deploy ground troops in Ukraine which Trump isn't so far in Iran. Even then that has not led to a Russian win in Ukraine
The example of an idiot sticking a large number of other people’s dicks in a blender, is not one to be copied.
It is the only way to have a chance of regime change though unless mass opposition to the regime on the streets which is no longer the case it seems in Iran air strikes alone will not work
When in a hole
1) stop digging
Or
2) hire Bagger 288
Many people think that 1) is a better option
If you attack a country to get regime change you need to see it through
Indeed.
Which, given that it is nearly impossible to do that by bombing, is why it is an epically stupid idea to try for regime change.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
The Scouts make it work though.
Its their choice, not the law.
If you want to take a mixed sex cohort you can, you just need to take appropriate safeguarding measures. Don't take a mixed sex cohort and pretend its single sex though.
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
Except that energy facilities, with the exception of specifically-protected ones like dams and nuclear, have been consistently targeted since then too, since they still provide legitimate military necessity.
In Korea and Vietnam the energy facilities were consistently targeted.
In the Gulf War the coalition forces heavily bombarded Iraq's electricity grid. Justified because electricity is essential to command, control and weapons production.
NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia included heavy and targeted bombardment of Serbia's electrical infrastructure.
If it is proportionate to reopening the Strait then it is a legitimate military objective, under dual-use principles.
It’s stretching the definition of dual use.
There has been huge criticism of putin targeting Ukraine’s civilian power infrastructure. It has been considered a war crime.
But now Trump has done the same
That's standard irregular verb behaviour.
I have long considered Putin's regular deliberate bombing of civilians to be the war crime, not his targeting of infrastructure, which is something we have done in virtually every war we have ever engaged in.
To the best of my knowledge the only major conflict the west has ever engaged in post-WWII which has not seen energy targeted was 2003's Iraq War - where it was a matter of policy not to do so, because the invasion was planning to take over the running of those facilities so there was a desire not to damage them.
We trashed everything in Basra although the destroying the fresh water supply caused a lot more issues than the damage to the power system. At least we had the wits to lie about it and blame the subsequent chaos and suffering on 'saboteurs' stealing copper cables. Where the fuck these fictional saboteurs were planning to sell tons of fictional copper in the middle of a fucking war was a question that was thankfully left unexamined. Thank me for my service.
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
How do you do it? Iran puts IRGC party on ship, you suddenly have a brutal firefight or have to sink it
I have no skin in this game and the header is comprehensive and the legal summary is very clear
On that basis I can't help fearing the law might be an ass. As @Stuartinromford suggested most sensible people would be of the opinion "live and let live". Whatever floats one's boat but I think there should be a significant distinction between someone undertaking transformative surgery and hormone therapy and Isla Bryson.
For decades no one minded James Morris transitioning to Jan. There was a trans glamour model called Tula in the 1970s who was often draped over a pimped car on the cover of Custom Car magazine or page 3 of the Sun. No one cared.
People like Isla Bryson have poisoned the well for those without ulterior criminal motivations.
Possibly the biggest mistake in the law was to say (with good intentions) that surgery was not required to be trans and get a GRA.
If only post-op individuals were being discussed, I think the debate would be much calmer. In fact I doubt there'd ever have been much of a debate.
Unintended consequences has meant that tightening up against abuse has meant safeguarding people who were legitimate.
I think the problem here, as cyclefree normally points out, is that the ECHR has adjudicated that you cannot make surgery a condition for people obtaining rights. As a statement in isolation that makes complete sense. It would be kinda barbaric to make rights conditional on having surgery.
But that directly conflicts with what I otherwise would agree is a commonsense place to draw the line - that to all intents and purposes we can treat a post-op individual as their chosen gender, while there are a limited number of safeguarding situations that demand different treatment for pre-op individuals (but, still, in the vast number of circumstances it doesn't matter what sex/gender someone is, so it doesn't matter if they're trans).
I honestly do not know how you resolve this conflict. Everything would be a lot simpler if there weren't so many men who were a violent risk to women, so perhaps dealing with that would be a good place to start.
It is not making 'the right' conditional on the surgery, it is withholding legal recognition of a new sex from people who retain the distinguishing marks of their old one. Before that, their rights as their new gender are a non-issue.
You don't have a right to free wheelchair if you still have the use of your legs.
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Romford/Havering is certainly an interestimg one. Not sure Restore will have candidates in time? Theyll be very hard pressed to do any vetting. I suspect theyll be very tightly focussed on a few areas. Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
It is not 'stealing oil' from China, it is forcibly diverting oil from China to a different client, and it would be the USA doing it - they were still a bigger power than China last time I checked.
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
If you want bone picking practice I recommend a visit to an ossuary. The best one is at St Leonard's Church, Hythe. That has around 1000 skulls in the crypt.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Romford/Havering is certainly an interestimg one. Not sure Restore will have candidates in time? Theyll be very hard pressed to do any vetting. I suspect theyll be very tightly focussed on a few areas. Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
Restore have got a pretty obvious source of activists and candidates in Havering- all the Reformers pushed aside to make space for Andy and Andy's mates.
I don't know if it's just me but Israel telling us that Iranian missiles are now our problem as well reminds me very strongly of the Star Trek TNG - Ensgn Ro episode where there is a purported Bajoran terrorist attack on a federation colony and the Cardassians tell the federation - "see this is your problem too" and the unwitting admiral believes them and gets Picard to bring the Bajoran terrorists in for them.
I'm not suggesting that Israel staged the missile attack on Diego Garcia but the timing and their very public appeals are just very reminiscent of that episode.
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
It is not 'stealing oil' from China, it is forcibly diverting oil from China to a different client, and it would be the USA doing it - they were still a bigger power than China last time I checked.
Your craven attitude is frankly bizarre.
You are suggesting it is bizarre to be a little wary of provoking a mass murdering regime led by a senile old lunatic with his fingers on the world's third largest nuclear weapon?
A deeply bipolar song, very upbeat and catchy, but actually sad and about child abuse.
Maybe that's what makes it so brilliant.
I’ll try it later. I always quite like songs where the lyrics are counter to the music.
Have you come across Artificial Flowers (a little more mournful than their usual style) about a 10 year old whose parents freeze to death and she is forced to work to survive
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Romford/Havering is certainly an interestimg one. Not sure Restore will have candidates in time? Theyll be very hard pressed to do any vetting. I suspect theyll be very tightly focussed on a few areas. Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
Restore have got a pretty obvious source of activists and candidates in Havering- all the Reformers pushed aside to make space for Andy and Andy's mates.
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
That's the problem, people who are prepared to stand up to China is precisely who we do need as diplomats.
If its not under a Chinese flag, or in Chinese waters, then its not Chinese oil yet.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
The Scouts make it work though.
Its their choice, not the law.
If you want to take a mixed sex cohort you can, you just need to take appropriate safeguarding measures. Don't take a mixed sex cohort and pretend its single sex though.
Actually - I'm probably wrong, both GG and WI are charities with their Charitable Objectives riddled with the problematic terms "women" and "girls". That probably means they are vulnerable to legal challenge
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
That's the problem, people who are prepared to stand up to China is precisely who we do need as diplomats.
If it's not under a Chinese flag, or in Chinese waters, then it's not Chinese oil yet.
It is if they've paid for it. When I have paid for something from Amazon, I expect it to be delivered to me, and not seized in transit by some fat old paedo who has an ostensible beef with the supplier and is in reality trying to cover up various criminal acts of his own.
And amusing though it would be to see China suddenly implode economically, this war is already spreading rather alarmingly. The last thing we need economically or geopolitically is for it to engulf the Far East as well.
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
Compared to the rest of us, the World looks very different through the prism of Donald Trump
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
Compared to the rest of us, the World looks very different through the prism of Donald Trump
If only the Senate and Supreme Court had done their job correctly so the world could look very different to him as imprisoned Donald Trump.
It seems the Iranians are claiming the Straits of Hormuz are open to all ships except those "linked to Iran's enemies". Now, that seems a pretty broad statement - does that include the registry of the ship or simply where it's going?
Trump continues to thrash and threaten - it's a long while since I was in that state but he sounds more like an angry early teenage boy some days. It's my experience some people, as they get older, revert to a more child like state - I warned Mrs Stodge about that and drew the inevitable rejoinder she wouldn't notice the difference and then sent me upstairs without any supper.
The one thing all this uncertainty won't do is help oil prices (unless you like having high oil prices as a major oil producer who doesn't need the Gulf like, oh I don't know, America or Russia).
I am told by those who have more knowledge of this than I (which is almost anyone on almost anything), petrol supplies are fine but diesel might become an issue - I've literally no clue.
IF I were a bluff old cynic with childlike tendencies, I'd suggest the current situation could almost be contrived to hurt Europe and China at the expense of America and Russia but that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
The only thing I'll say about that is that, because oil is priced worldwide (if I'm right) in US Dollars, then prices in the States and Russia will also rise, even though local market forces would suggest they won't.
And because of the two people in charge of the United States and Russia, I can guarantee that this increased 'state' [1] revenue will NOT trickle down to the average Russian or American. So for them, prices will go up too, and state benefits not increase to compensate.
[1] By State I mean the Louis XIV view of the 'State', so Trump and Putin personally.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Romford/Havering is certainly an interestimg one. Not sure Restore will have candidates in time? Theyll be very hard pressed to do any vetting. I suspect theyll be very tightly focussed on a few areas. Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
Restore have got a pretty obvious source of activists and candidates in Havering- all the Reformers pushed aside to make space for Andy and Andy's mates.
The nomination list will be fascinating.
The vetting will be a problem if they insist on taking about "thorough vetting" ad nauseam. That was happening in Scotland a little, but I am not over all the detail. They need to take care about "lamp posts, walking into".
The leader, Malcolm Offord, was talking about his 73 candidates and talking about vetting. Then before you could say Jack Robinson James O'Brien had an "alleged racist", "an alleged crook" (company director suspended over a Covid loan), and a "Tommy Robinson supporter".
Tory leaflet for the Holyrood election through the door. One of the few remaining councillors who hasn't defected to the fukers is the candidate.
TBH there is literally nothing on his leaflet I disagree with. And half of it has appeared on a LD leaflet or two previously. I think his 5 priorities include 3 of mine from my 2024 GE campaign...
No one seems to give a damn anymore but article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with grave breaches, provides, amongst others that, "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" is a war crime.
Destroying the energy infrastructure of Iran would, in my view, be a war crime, particularly in the context of a country which is already suffering deeply from drought and which is very dependent on the pumping of water.
But I wouldn't want to make the policy seem even more attractive to Trump than it is already.
Energy facilities have been consistently regarded as legitimate military targets in warfare, have they not? I seem to recall we targeted them extensively in WWII.
Do you have a better method, via military tools, to force the reopening of the Straits and the collapse of the regime?
If not, then it is surely justified by military necessity? Considering the fact that we are at a point where they are actively at war and the Strait is closed.
The clue's in the name, The Fourth Geneva Convention.
It is almost like after WWII it was decided some things were off limits and should not be repeated.
It's notable how 'we must start a war to overthrow the regime for the sake of the Iranian people' has so easily morphed into it's fine to target civilians, whatever the law says.
This is approaching Russian logic.
Yup, Vladimir Putin's could have written Bart's posts this morning.
It reinforces the point I have been making, plenty of the Iranian population and the wider diaspora think this war isn't about regime change but bombing Iran back into the stone age.
Except I am right.
As Richard Tyndall also said too, the targeting of energy facilities has been consistently done over time, under the claim of military necessity.
It is one of those irregular verbs again.
I know people on here don’t like facts but I thought this link was interesting (haven’t read it in full yet). It draws a distinction between Putin’s targeting of civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and Ukraine’s targeting of oil facilities in Russia.
I don’t know enough of the detail to form a view on which side of the line Iran is, but suffice to say that there is a line and Ukraine and Russia are on different sides of it
Ukraine has also directly targeted thermal power plants in Russia and occupied Ukraine. I think they've done so on the same basis that the British used chemical weapons in WWI - the enemy had done so first, and as a deterrent against Russia escalating such attacks.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?
Nope: TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Their main customer is China.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
That's the problem, people who are prepared to stand up to China is precisely who we do need as diplomats.
If it's not under a Chinese flag, or in Chinese waters, then it's not Chinese oil yet.
It is if they've paid for it. When I have paid for something from Amazon, I expect it to be delivered to me, and not seized in transit by some fat old paedo who has an ostensible beef with the supplier and is in reality trying to cover up various criminal acts of his own.
And amusing though it would be to see China suddenly implode economically, this war is already spreading rather alarmingly. The last thing we need economically or geopolitically is for it to engulf the Far East as well.
In addition, if you try to cut off the Chinese oil supply, they will not do a Starmer and rely on a legal opinion which won’t cross their desks anyway.
Some fine print hairsplitting on the exact legal ownership of the oil and gas on the way to them won’t matter.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?
Nope: TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
Re-read what was quoted.
The Scouts cope with mixed sex cohorts on camping trips.
Yes, their charitable objectives are different. Though they choose their objectives. The Scouts objective previously referenced boys, they opted to become mixed-sex and chose to change that to young people.
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
It's going to all be about the spin of the story. That, and the random action of FPTP.
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Romford/Havering is certainly an interestimg one. Not sure Restore will have candidates in time? Theyll be very hard pressed to do any vetting. I suspect theyll be very tightly focussed on a few areas. Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
Right now I find it impossible to differentiate Tory from Reform.
The difference in leaders is that Farage does at least have a personable side, if someone has a go at him, he has this disarming tactic of smiling and nodding his head. He then gives his answer in grown up language. I never agree with it, but it's adult and personable
Badenoch on the other hand is a personality free zone, who just smirks and retorts with personal abuse.
She needs to watch Cleverly, he gave a masterclass this morning in towing a Party line he's clearly uncomfortable with, with a wry smile through his griited teeth. He's a personable person too
The news that Orbán’s people inform Moscow about EU Council meetings in every detail shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time. That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2035681193052471312
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?
Nope: TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
Re-read what was quoted.
The Scouts cope with mixed sex cohorts on camping trips.
Yes, their charitable objectives are different. Though they choose their objectives. The Scouts objective previously referenced boys, they opted to become mixed-sex and chose to change that to young people.
Nothing prevents the Guides from doing the same.
TO PROMOTE THE EDUCATION OF **GIRLS AND YOUNG WOMEN** TO HELP THEM DEVELOP EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND THE WIDER WORLD.
That makes them a single sex organization. People give money to them according to their chariable objectives. They cannot then spend that money on biological men. It'd be like RSPB spending money on a cat shelter.
(sorry for the shouty caps - that's what on the charity website)
AI bubble is also likely to burst this year. And good thing too as the slop can end.
Got my first AI slop pull request on an open source project of mine this morning. Ugh.
Can u translate that to English please.
@carnforth runs a free, open project writing a piece of software. Offering open collaboration with anyone who wants to help.
In order to accumulate street cred, morons use AI to generate pointless/damaging code changes to the project. And they wil do the same to many other projects. So they will look like they are coding on lots of projects.
The morons can get angry if you block their gibberish.
It seems we are getting close to a rational conclusion to this debate that will satisfy all but the most hardcore extremists.
Treat all people with dignity and respect.
When it comes to trans individuals, treat them with dignity and respect. Where it does not violate safeguarding, then call them by whatever name they want to be called and whatever pronoun they want to be called - out of respect.
However if it violates safeguarding, then safe spaces might be required for real women, not trans women.
If need be, alternative provision might be required for trans individuals, eg gender-neutral toilets, that maintain dignity and respect without violating the safeguarding protections for women.
Yep. Things should in general be trans inclusive unless there's a safety or fairness issue in which case exclusion can be justified. I think most people would think that reasonable.
But consider the WI instance. There's no safety or fairness issue there, they want to carry on as they are - inclusive - but following the judgement have concluded they must now exclude trans women.
So we're not there yet.
There is a safety/fairness issue there, it is an organisation for women. Any discussions that they have exclude males for a reason.
If it were not, they would not be excluding biological males, which includes any "trans women".
They disagree. They see no such issues. They've been trans inclusive with no problems for years. They didn't want to change. The membership concurs.
What you're effectively saying is that anything badged as 'for women' must by definition be for biological women only, regardless of whether there is a genuine safety or fairness issue and regardless of what the women involved in it want.
That's fine as an opinion (and the judgement does push in that direction) but it isn't the balanced moderate stance you're presenting it as. It's more the absolutist 'gender critical' position.
I am saying if there is no safeguarding concerns, then we should be inclusive of everyone - males, females, trans or not.
I am saying if it is safeguarded for women, then it should be for women. Which yes, is gender-critical perhaps but then that is the purpose of a women's-only space.
If its not for women, then it should be inclusive to everyone, whether that be males or trans individuals.
Nobody should be discriminated against because they are trans. But excluding biological males from women's spaces is not discrimination.
However, isn't the point of viewpoint's excellent article that, even in situations where there isn't a safeguarding issue (Susan is, by external anatomy, female), the sum effect of various laws is to treat Susan as male? And that even if an organisation like the WI or Girlguiding wants to be trans inclusive, it dare not for fear of a rich person attacking them with legal threats?
And I don't know about anyone else, but I don't trust law or politics to reflect the will of the people on this, because a determined minority tends to beat a mild majority.
There is no law AFAIK preventing either the WI or Girlguiding to allow men or boys into their organisations if they choose to do so.
I have a friend whose daughter is in the Scouts, not the Guides.
That they choose to be women's-only organisations is their choice.
The weird thing is they are making the choice whilst saying they don't agree with it. Trying to claim they are being forced by the law.
The Guides one is, if anything, stranger given that girls have been allowed in the Cubs and Scouts for over 30 years (and were also when the Scouts was first formed 1907 until the Guides were founded in 1910).
The guides I think realised they had a problem with things like camping trips which get much more complicated with a mixed sex cohort - if you're not allowed to believe it is an undifferentiated single gender.
Yet the Scouts don't have this problem?
Nope: TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
Re-read what was quoted.
The Scouts cope with mixed sex cohorts on camping trips.
Yes, their charitable objectives are different. Though they choose their objectives. The Scouts objective previously referenced boys, they opted to become mixed-sex and chose to change that to young people.
Nothing prevents the Guides from doing the same.
I would need to ask twin A what the block on Guiding doing the same is - as I believe the last conversation she had regarding it (with senior guiding people) was it requires Royal sign off...
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
AI bubble is also likely to burst this year. And good thing too as the slop can end.
Got my first AI slop pull request on an open source project of mine this morning. Ugh.
Can u translate that to English please.
@carnforth runs a free, open project writing a piece of software. Offering open collaboration with anyone who wants to help.
In order to accumulate street cred, morons use AI to generate pointless/damaging code changes to the project. And they wil do the same to many other projects. So they will look like they are coding on lots of projects.
The morons can get angry if you block their gibberish.
AI bubble is also likely to burst this year. And good thing too as the slop can end.
Got my first AI slop pull request on an open source project of mine this morning. Ugh.
Can u translate that to English please.
I write free software - and the code is freely available too. It's a collaborative process so, instead of just asking for a new feature, a user - if they are also a programmer - can simply implement the new feature and submit the code differences to me, hoping I will include it officially. This is called a pull request.
Sadly, AI knows how to code and write plausible pull requests. Such AI pull requests take more effort to review than to write. And are almost invariably worthless. And unmarked. And plausible. It's like being bothered in the street by a beggar with a long sob story.
The news that Orbán’s people inform Moscow about EU Council meetings in every detail shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time. That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2035681193052471312
Bit harsh on Mandelson. He passed secrets to a paedo with dodgy links, not to a country actively engaged in a war.
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
And in 1991 - no-one would give a damn, trying to change GG's objectives now - big row.
Goodwin seems about as careful and credible an author as Naomi Wolf.
EXC: .@GoodwinMJ’s new book “Suicide of a Nation: Immigration, Islam, Identity” is out now, and I’m only 5 chapters in and have found a huge amount of what appears to be false quotes and basic misinterpretations of data, that appear to be AI hallucinations.
Tory leaflet for the Holyrood election through the door. One of the few remaining councillors who hasn't defected to the fukers is the candidate.
TBH there is literally nothing on his leaflet I disagree with. And half of it has appeared on a LD leaflet or two previously. I think his 5 priorities include 3 of mine from my 2024 GE campaign...
It's a local election, the reason I usually vote Tory in GEs is because of things that are the responsibility of national government. Had a leaflet from the Greens today and it seems sensible. The Lib Dem council could do with some challenge and the local Tories are screw the environment, pro-car, ignore everyone who doesn't drive around in an SUV.
No I would not contemplate voting Green at a GE (or Reform, I'm assuming it will probably be LibDem again depending on what the Tories offer)
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
AI bubble is also likely to burst this year. And good thing too as the slop can end.
Got my first AI slop pull request on an open source project of mine this morning. Ugh.
Can u translate that to English please.
I write free software - and the code is freely available too. It's a collaborative process so, instead of just asking for a new feature, a user - if they are also a programmer - can simply implement the new feature and submit the code differences to me, hoping I will include it officially. This is called a pull request.
Sadly, AI knows how to code and write plausible pull requests. Such AI pull requests take more effort to review than to write. And are almost invariably worthless. And unmarked. And plausible. It's like being bothered in the street by a beggar with a long sob story.
The only time I ever gave money to a beggar in London was when I was sitting drinking outside with a friend and an elderly Irishman came up and told us very good jokes (very obscene ones, admittedly) for five solid minutes.
We both gave him a fiver and agreed after he'd gone that at least it was original!
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
And in 1991 - no-one would give a damn, trying to change GG's objectives now - big row.
So its still their choice.
It was the Scouts choice to start accepting girls. It was the Scouts choice to change their wording.
It is the Guides choice not to accept boys. It is the Guides choice not to change the wording.
You're right they may not want a big row. That's public opinion, not law, though.
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
And in 1991 - no-one would give a damn, trying to change GG's objectives now - big row.
So its still their choice.
It was the Scouts' choice to start accepting girls. It was the Scouts' choice to change their wording.
It is the Guides' choice not to accept boys. It is the Guides' choice not to change the wording.
You're right they may not want a big row. That's public opinion, not law, though.
AAAAAARGH!
Heard yesterday for Comic Relief:
What do you say to console a distraught English teacher?
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
And in 1991 - no-one would give a damn, trying to change GG's objectives now - big row.
So its still their choice.
It was the Scouts choice to start accepting girls. It was the Scouts choice to change their wording.
It is the Guides choice not to accept boys. It is the Guides choice not to change the wording.
You're right they may not want a big row. That's public opinion, not law, though.
Not just a row. There is different motivation for girls needing a single-sex space and boys not.
Goodwin seems about as careful and credible an author as Naomi Wolf.
EXC: .@GoodwinMJ’s new book “Suicide of a Nation: Immigration, Islam, Identity” is out now, and I’m only 5 chapters in and have found a huge amount of what appears to be false quotes and basic misinterpretations of data, that appear to be AI hallucinations.
The Scouts charitable wording evolved over time to the young people of today.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
And in 1991 - no-one would give a damn, trying to change GG's objectives now - big row.
So its still their choice.
It was the Scouts choice to start accepting girls. It was the Scouts choice to change their wording.
It is the Guides choice not to accept boys. It is the Guides choice not to change the wording.
You're right they may not want a big row. That's public opinion, not law, though.
Not just a row. There is different motivation for girls needing a single-sex space and boys not.
If I recall, the argument is similar to the positive justification for single-sex schools for girls.
The news that Orbán’s people inform Moscow about EU Council meetings in every detail shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time. That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2035681193052471312
Bit harsh on Mandelson. He passed secrets to a paedo with dodgy links, not to a country actively engaged in a war.
Yes, I suppose. Orban has his own paedo links, too.
Tory chief whip reposts AI video created by far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes
Exclusive: Rebecca Harris promotes latest Crewkerne Gazette skit, created by Joshua Bonehill-Paine who says he is Tory member
The Conservative party’s chief whip has been condemned for promoting AI-generated footage created by a notorious far-right figure who was jailed for hate crimes against Jewish people.
Rebecca Harris reposted the latest skit by the Crewkerne Gazette, which depicts Kemi Badenoch and her shadow justice secretary, Nick Timothy, as characters in the gangster film Scarface.
The online satirical account had gained a large online following before its creator was revealed last month to be Joshua Bonehill-Paine, an activist who previously described himself as a “nationalist, fascist, theorist and supporter of white rights”.
It can now also be revealed that Bonehill-Paine claims to be a fully paid-up member of the Conservative party, despite a history of far-right activism and convictions ranging from assault to racially aggravated harassment against a Jewish Labour MP.
Should he though? If the video itself was hateful/illegal then yes. If he has just reposted something from his thread without diligencing the source then he’s a bloody idiot in his position but it’s not a resigning matter
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
And here you go again. It’s obvious to anyone with a pulse that the only long term way out is renewables and nuclear. Why can’t you see it!
I have heard no serious arguments against the idea that the USA simply commandeers Iranian oil vessels heading to Iran's clients, to stop the flow of oil and gas. That places the regime in an impossible situation financially and forces them to the negotiating table.
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
Reform were not even in the top 3 in 2022, now they lead the polls so if they win the NEV Reform make big seat gains across the country
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
I get the kneejerk "support America" notion. Ordinarily that would have been the way forward for a Conservative leader.
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
I don't get it, and it shouldn't be the reflexive action for a conservative leader, regardless of who is running the US. As a matter of fact, ruinous foreign conflicts that cause chaos and have no plausible off-ramp are not a unique feature of Trump's US - they are the norm for that country.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
And here you go again. It’s obvious to anyone with a pulse that the only long term way out is renewables and nuclear. Why can’t you see it!
If there is any positive to be drawn from this chaos, it is that a few more minds should become focused on the urgency of developing alternatives to fossil fuels.
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Afternoon all. Was taking a look at the Reform polling decline after last nights Opinium. They were last as low as 27 with them straddling the 2025 LEs (only a couple of 29s since, all others 30 plus) and were at 27 with them as far back as Jan 2025. The same goes for YouGov and Find Out Now - back to pre LE 2025 levels.with other pollsters they are running a point to two points above the run in to 2025 LEs. The point i think that will prove crucial is that they are hitting these levels on a sharpish downward trajectory and not the sharp upward one early 2025 saw. This suggests at least the possibility of an undershoot versus expectations. Im of the opinion as we stand that this will show itself in a very poor Holyrood showing (possibly even falling below the Tories, LDs or Greens in seats, very probably below Labour), a poor London result, perhaps 4th in wards won and no more than 1 or 2 councils and failing to come first in Wales. Then id take a look at thr 73 seats they are defending - how many of them are lost?
The polls may turn of course and they have the virtual standing start premium of lots of gains but the potential for narrative shift exists
As you say though in most polls Reform are polling about as well as before the LE2025, they are about tied in Wales for the lead, likely to win the most or second most list seats at Holyrood and make gains in outer London suburbs. We are a long way yet from saying Reform are in real decline
Doing 30 braking versus doing 30 accelerating.
Unless heavy tactical anti Reform votes this year though Reform will likely see similar gains, especially in the country council and redwall large town and northern and Midlands cities voting and in Wales
What does 'similar gains' mean? Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
Wining the NEV and the gains will follow from that
That means nothing. They won the NEV by double digits last year. Theyd make gains if they didnt win the NEV. Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
Reform were not even in the top 3 in 2022, now they lead the polls so if they win the NEV Reform make big seat gains across the country
And? Its a meaningless non prediction. Nobody is arguing they wont make gains.
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Why did she U-turn then?
She hasn't, Kemi still backs the strikes and unlike Starmer wants the RAF to strike Iranian missile sites too
Badenoch made a big mistake supporting the war. It’s not fatal but it shows she still doesn’t really understand the pool she is supposed to be swimming in.
Not really, 49% of Conservative voters and 58% of Reform voters back the US strikes in Iran, only 35% and 25% opposed.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1
Why did she U-turn then?
She hasn't, Kemi still backs the strikes and unlike Starmer wants the RAF to strike Iranian missile sites too
Comments
If there are some posters on here who fit your description have the courage to name them directly, rather than using a group description that encompasses all of those who are strong supporters of Ukraine.
Obviously they will make gains. Whats the baseline?
As far as I am aware there is no law or court case that has said they must be for women only.
They have chosen their membership criteria independently.
There has been huge criticism of putin targeting Ukraine’s civilian power infrastructure. It has been considered a war crime.
But now Trump has done the same
But that directly conflicts with what I otherwise would agree is a commonsense place to draw the line - that to all intents and purposes we can treat a post-op individual as their chosen gender, while there are a limited number of safeguarding situations that demand different treatment for pre-op individuals (but, still, in the vast number of circumstances it doesn't matter what sex/gender someone is, so it doesn't matter if they're trans).
I honestly do not know how you resolve this conflict. Everything would be a lot simpler if there weren't so many men who were a violent risk to women, so perhaps dealing with that would be a good place to start.
I have long considered Putin's regular deliberate bombing of civilians to be the war crime, not his targeting of infrastructure, which is something we have done in virtually every war we have ever engaged in.
To the best of my knowledge the only major conflict the west has ever engaged in post-WWII which has not seen energy targeted was 2003's Iraq War - where it was a matter of policy not to do so, because the invasion was planning to take over the running of those facilities so there was a desire not to damage them.
There is no other conflict ever that I can think of, not even the bombing of Yugoslavia, where energy has been spared on the basis of "civilian use".
Precedence says that energy is dual/military use so can be proportionate. If this is the best, proportionate, way to get Iran to surrender and open the Strait then it is proportionate under the law and nearly 8 decades of precedence.
1) stop digging
Or
2) hire Bagger 288
Many people think that 1) is a better option
Their target for a good night isn't 'make some gains' given they won just 2 wards in 2022.
I don’t know enough of the detail to form a view on which side of the line Iran is, but suffice to say that there is a line and Ukraine and Russia are on different sides of it
We don't know what legal advice the WI and Girlguiding have had. It might be as grim as "not entirely hypothetical organisations with access to lots of money could take you to court if your boundary line for membership is 'cis women and trans women'. They will keep at this until you run out of money, and you will run out of money before them."
Hence the decisions those organisations have made. It's not pretty, it's not how we like to think the law works, but it's legal realpolitik.
Trump: “Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT”
Heather Cox Richardson summarising very well the makeup and motivation of the segments of Trump's movement (America Firsters, Tech Bros, White Nationalists etc), and the tensions in the coalition at present, in the first part of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_XTNM05oKQ
A short (15 min) piece from the Rest is Politics US, which amongst other things states that there are a number of Republicans in the Senate who would vote "guilty" if Trump were to be impeached, in a conversation about the Save America Act, which is about preventing some people from voting:
"Trump's NEFARIOUS Plan To RIG ELECTIONS Explained"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vP72-SFqQs
(Here in Romford, it's pretty clear that the Conservative 2022 vote will split into Con/Ref, possible even Con/Ref/Restore. On the left, there's a Lab/Green split which hasn't really been an issue before. There's also a Residents Association that has run the place for the last term and at least five Lib Dem voters.
Try picking the bones out of that.)
Which, given that it is nearly impossible to do that by bombing, is why it is an epically stupid idea to try for regime change.
Its their choice, not the law.
If you want to take a mixed sex cohort you can, you just need to take appropriate safeguarding measures. Don't take a mixed sex cohort and pretend its single sex though.
You don't have a right to free wheelchair if you still have the use of your legs.
If you don't think stealing oil from China would be a bad idea, I would advise you not to become a diplomat.
Romford looks closer than Hornchurch etc in the RefCon scrap
Your craven attitude is bizarre.
https://www.slhk.org/theossuary.htm
The nomination list will be fascinating.
I'm not suggesting that Israel staged the missile attack on Diego Garcia but the timing and their very public appeals are just very reminiscent of that episode.
Well, it's a view.
I hear hurricanes a-blowing
I know the end is coming soon
I fear rivers overflowing
I hear the voice of rage and ruin..
If its not under a Chinese flag, or in Chinese waters, then its not Chinese oil yet.
And amusing though it would be to see China suddenly implode economically, this war is already spreading rather alarmingly. The last thing we need economically or geopolitically is for it to engulf the Far East as well.
Idea:rocket:blame
And because of the two people in charge of the United States and Russia, I can guarantee that this increased 'state' [1] revenue will NOT trickle down to the average Russian or American. So for them, prices will go up too, and state benefits not increase to compensate.
[1] By State I mean the Louis XIV view of the 'State', so Trump and Putin personally.
The leader, Malcolm Offord, was talking about his 73 candidates and talking about vetting. Then before you could say Jack Robinson James O'Brien had an "alleged racist", "an alleged crook" (company director suspended over a Covid loan), and a "Tommy Robinson supporter".
https://www.lbc.co.uk/videos/2JsSdcrtaQU/
TBF this is knockabout, but it will be interesting if they have 1600 new Councillors.
TBH there is literally nothing on his leaflet I disagree with. And half of it has appeared on a LD leaflet or two previously. I think his 5 priorities include 3 of mine from my 2024 GE campaign...
(Also, I can't see a link in your comment)
TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF **YOUNG PEOPLE** IN ACHIEVING THEIR FULL PHYSICAL, INTELLECTUAL, SOCIAL AND SPIRITUAL POTENTIALS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS AND AS MEMBERS OF THEIR LOCAL, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITIES
Some fine print hairsplitting on the exact legal ownership of the oil and gas on the way to them won’t matter.
They will regard that it as existential for them.
The Scouts cope with mixed sex cohorts on camping trips.
Yes, their charitable objectives are different. Though they choose their objectives. The Scouts objective previously referenced boys, they opted to become mixed-sex and chose to change that to young people.
Nothing prevents the Guides from doing the same.
The difference in leaders is that Farage does at least have a personable side, if someone has a go at him, he has this disarming tactic of smiling and nodding his head. He then gives his answer in grown up language. I never agree with it, but it's adult and personable
Badenoch on the other hand is a personality free zone, who just smirks and retorts with personal abuse.
She needs to watch Cleverly, he gave a masterclass this morning in towing a Party line he's clearly uncomfortable with, with a wry smile through his griited teeth. He's a personable person too
The news that Orbán’s people inform Moscow about EU Council meetings in every detail shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time. That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary.
https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2035681193052471312
That makes them a single sex organization. People give money to them according to their chariable objectives. They cannot then spend that money on biological men. It'd be like RSPB spending money on a cat shelter.
(sorry for the shouty caps - that's what on the charity website)
In order to accumulate street cred, morons use AI to generate pointless/damaging code changes to the project. And they wil do the same to many other projects. So they will look like they are coding on lots of projects.
The morons can get angry if you block their gibberish.
From when it was founded it was "... development of boys ..." despite girls being excluded from a few years after its founding (they originally accepted girls until the Guides was founded).
From 1976 they started to accept girls, but the phrasing was still "... development of boys ..." despite accepting girls too.
It was only from 1991, 15 years after they started accepting girls, that the wording was changed to young people.
Or indeed, just about any other policy.
Sadly, AI knows how to code and write plausible pull requests. Such AI pull requests take more effort to review than to write. And are almost invariably worthless. And unmarked. And plausible. It's like being bothered in the street by a beggar with a long sob story.
EXC: .@GoodwinMJ’s new book “Suicide of a Nation: Immigration, Islam, Identity” is out now, and I’m only 5 chapters in and have found a huge amount of what appears to be false quotes and basic misinterpretations of data, that appear to be AI hallucinations.
Matthew, can you explain the claims you made in the book that I’ve outlined in the below thread? ..
https://x.com/andytwelves/status/2035669425567744140
No I would not contemplate voting Green at a GE (or Reform, I'm assuming it will probably be LibDem again depending on what the Tories offer)
We both gave him a fiver and agreed after he'd gone that at least it was original!
But Gilead isn't America. It used to be, but isn't. And backing the paedo king is not a long term strategy...
It was the Scouts choice to start accepting girls.
It was the Scouts choice to change their wording.
It is the Guides choice not to accept boys.
It is the Guides choice not to change the wording.
You're right they may not want a big row. That's public opinion, not law, though.
Heard yesterday for Comic Relief:
What do you say to console a distraught English teacher?
There
They're
Their.
He’s not an academic anymore by any sense of the word. He’s a right wing grifter and has moved Reform into a very stupid direction in my view.
They have become completely obsessed with Islam and vote rigging since Gorton.
Some might want cred[it] for getting requests approved and not care about the fact that its slop.
Orban has his own paedo links, too.
However, the attention is now going to switch to the domestic impact of the war, and here the Tories are on far safer ground, because they are on the record opposing loony Net Zero policies and supporting drilling the North Sea. Unless Sir Useless does another very big u-turn here, it is going to get very messy for him.
So Kemi's voters are more hawklike than the average UK voter, 49% of whom oppose the strikes and 28% in favour, even if not quite as bomb the regime to bits as Farage's voters. What she should raise is the need for ground troops by Trump if he really wants regime change
https://yougov.com/en-gb/daily-results/20260302-14ed5-1