I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
That’s not a bad idea, but I’d make it a little broader and make it the department of technology.
There’s a lot of new technology on the way, and government needs to be well placed to take advantage of it. See for example what’s going on in space and in defence, as well as AI.
Government could save hundreds of billions over a Parliament by being smart with new technology.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Oh come on Malc
There’s a sector of UK society that wants to radiate its middle class worthiness on these economically inactive leeches while demanding pensions are stripped to the bare bones as we have no Money 🙄
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Call me cynical, but if AI can now spout bollocks as convincingly as your average management consultant, that's unlikely to be bad news for the economy. If the whole lot goes, that's £14-20bn which could be used for something more productive than the employing the equivalent of thousands of pointy haired bosses from Dilbert.
It's probably bad news for the balance of payments, if £6bn worth of foreign money was arriving in return for bollocks sprouted abroad.
It's probably particularly good news for the government, as they currently hand over vast sums of money to these outfits to be told what was usually obvious to the man in the street after 5 minutes thought. Maybe cutting spending will prove easier than they think.
This is the kind of post that really winds me up. What 'Michael Crick interview'? With whom?
It's like the 6 year old who assumes inhabit their world, know all their friends, etc. We get a lot of this on PB and this is by no means the worst example.
This is the kind of post that really winds me up. What 'Michael Crick interview'? With whom?
It's like the 6 year old who assumes inhabit their world, know all their friends, etc. We get a lot of this on PB and this is by no means the worst example.
(Rant over - I feel better now. Thanks)
If you scroll upthread, you'll see the link @DecrepiterJohnL posted.
I sometimes speculate that the Coalition agreement played a significant part in the success of the Coalition government. It required the politicians on both sides to think seriously about what their plans for government were over the next 5 years, the areas where they could work together and what aspirations and ambitions in their Manifestos had to be put aside. There was then a clear plan of what was to be done.
In contrast, most parties are elected on a Manifesto which is little more than a wish list of all the things they would like to do with unlimited time and resources. The tough choices are almost completely avoided and all too often policy A works contrary to policy B and vice versa. The 2024 Labour government was a classic of this kind which is why it never had any sense of direction. This did not mean it did nothing, some worthwhile things have been done, but there is no sense of purpose or priority.
With Burnham we are trying something even more radical. A new government without even a manifesto. He is going to have to disappoint a lot of people quickly. It will be a challenge to his considerable narrative skills to make this sound coherent. We can only hope he can pull it off.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
We are very poor at anticipating new jobs that transformative technologies unlock, because they don't exist yet.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
You can have it now.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
This is a pretty brutal assessment of Starmer's premiership. It's notable that even his defenders can't really explain what his actual merits as PM were.
After all of the u-turns, did he really stand for anything at all? Like so many of today’s politicians, an empty suit who wanted power but didn’t know what to do with it.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
We are very poor at anticipating new jobs that transformative technologies unlock, because they don't exist yet.
We’re poor at job creation and new business creation because we have a govt that punishes and does not reward employment
I sometimes speculate that the Coalition agreement played a significant part in the success of the Coalition government. It required the politicians on both sides to think seriously about what their plans for government were over the next 5 years, the areas where they could work together and what aspirations and ambitions in their Manifestos had to be put aside. There was then a clear plan of what was to be done.
In contrast, most parties are elected on a Manifesto which is little more than a wish list of all the things they would like to do with unlimited time and resources. The tough choices are almost completely avoided and all too often policy A works contrary to policy B and vice versa. The 2024 Labour government was a classic of this kind which is why it never had any sense of direction. This did not mean it did nothing, some worthwhile things have been done, but there is no sense of purpose or priority.
With Burnham we are trying something even more radical. A new government without even a manifesto. He is going to have to disappoint a lot of people quickly. It will be a challenge to his considerable narrative skills to make this sound coherent. We can only hope he can pull it off.
I'd think Streeting for chancellor (despite my dislike of him), then beef up the portfolios of both existing roles for Ed and Shabana. Both are (to my pov) doing their jobs well - but I could see a bit of an overall portfolio re-arrangement rather than a strict name <-> job title shuffle hitting the mark.
He should create a new Department for AI. For the avoidance of doubt that is artificial intelligence, rather than for Al Carns.
That’s not a bad idea, but I’d make it a little broader and make it the department of technology.
There’s a lot of new technology on the way, and government needs to be well placed to take advantage of it. See for example what’s going on in space and in defence, as well as AI.
Government could save hundreds of billions over a Parliament by being smart with new technology.
I sometimes speculate that the Coalition agreement played a significant part in the success of the Coalition government. It required the politicians on both sides to think seriously about what their plans for government were over the next 5 years, the areas where they could work together and what aspirations and ambitions in their Manifestos had to be put aside. There was then a clear plan of what was to be done.
In contrast, most parties are elected on a Manifesto which is little more than a wish list of all the things they would like to do with unlimited time and resources. The tough choices are almost completely avoided and all too often policy A works contrary to policy B and vice versa. The 2024 Labour government was a classic of this kind which is why it never had any sense of direction. This did not mean it did nothing, some worthwhile things have been done, but there is no sense of purpose or priority.
With Burnham we are trying something even more radical. A new government without even a manifesto. He is going to have to disappoint a lot of people quickly. It will be a challenge to his considerable narrative skills to make this sound coherent. We can only hope he can pull it off.
Your first two paragraphs are the best argument in favour of PR I've ever met.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciated. AIUI it's going to be lawsuits galore, especially when section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly makes it a criminal offence to disclose a GRA holder's trans status or gender history without that individual's explicit consent. So it's going to be very interesting seeing what happens when all the trans women in large offices get called into the HR office one morning and all of a sudden start using the disabled loo.
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
No matter how much lipstick you put on a trans woman’s vagina, it’s still not a vagina.
A niche fetish, but good luck with it.
Not my fetish, just some people's weird beliefs about human biology.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
Won't those machines need to be built and maintained/serviced throughout their lifetime though?
The figures on applications include both Small Boat Arrivals and those applying from a different position, such as a student visa. The main nationalities arriving by small boat are Afghans, Iranians, Sudanese and Eritreans, these are the applicants with the highest success rates. 93% of Sudanese for example.
Even so and considering all asylum applications, 42% are successful at first application and of those initially rejected 76% appeal, of which 33% of appeals are successful, so the majority of asylum applications are successful.
More than 95% of small boat arrivals apply for asylum.
It's against the law to enter the country without permission, but the authorities don't seem to apply that law very much.
Important not to mislead. It is legal to enter the country with the intention of applying for asylum.
utter bollox, they were already in many safe countries where they could have applied for it , they just illegally enter UK as it is mugsville and treats them as lottery winners.
Oh come on Malc
There’s a sector of UK society that wants to radiate its middle class worthiness on these economically inactive leeches while demanding pensions are stripped to the bare bones as we have no Money 🙄
Exactly the hand wringing Liberal champagne socialists, well knowing they will never be affected but want to make themselves feel superior.
Accenture’s crash shows the consultancy racket is finished Smart chatbots have exposed just how shallow much of the industry has become ... ... There are already signs of a wider downturn in the consulting industry. KPMG is laying off about 4pc of its American workforce, and 600 jobs in Britain. McKinsey has considered a 10pc reduction in its staff numbers, according to a Bloomberg report.
Here in the UK, PwC cut 2,000 people from its payroll last year and has reduced its graduate intake this year. We can assume there is a lot more “natural wastage” behind the scenes, as people who leave aren’t replaced. One by one, the major consulting firms are all starting to cut the number of people they employ.
For the British economy, that is likely to be especially bad news. Depending on the metric used, the consulting industry generates between £14bn and £20bn in annual revenues in this country and also accounts for close to £6bn a year in exports.
Classic broken window fallacy. I can’t see how this isn’t absolutely brilliant news for the economy in the long run, while appreciating that there will be some short term costs.
Consider tax advisory - that only exists because of the mad complexity of the tax system and the need for experts to guide a firm through it. If you can circumvent those costs via either AI or, better, a simpler system, that’s a good thing.
We can only hope that many of the graduates who might have been employed by consultancies get employed by the businesses who previously used the consultancy instead. If so, they may well contribute more to UK plc. I wouldn't overstate it though. My son graduated last year and most of his friends are working for either consultancy firms or quant firms.
I find this kind of question fascinating, and I think economic history proves that it’s impossible to predict. What industries will be borne from massive but intermittent electricity generation? If 50% of the UK’s service economy gets supplanted by AI, what’s everyone going to do?
At the top end, you’ll still have some consultants in the same way 1% of the population are still farmers. But otherwise…
I share your interest and lack of certainty about what the future holds. I think that AI and automation are more likely to destroy more jobs than they create and full employment may very soon become unattainable, if it is not already.
The key breakthroughs I see are in driving and care. If white van/delivery man is replaced then full employment is gone forever. If we get used to the idea that machines can provide care and company for our elderly and disabled so much work is going to disappear. Higher up the pay scale more jobs will survive but there will still be many fewer than there are today. How such a system produces an adequate surplus to provide even our current standard of living is still unclear to me.
I don’t think lack of employment is an issue as long as returns to labour overall remain a significant percentage of output (or capital is shared more equally).
Remember that something like 50% of the gains from productivity growth in the 20th century was absorbed by better standards of living. 5 day week, 9 to 5, holidays etc etc. One thing I’m fairly certain of is a 3/4 day week standard by the time I retire.
We are very poor at anticipating new jobs that transformative technologies unlock, because they don't exist yet.
We’re poor at job creation and new business creation because we have a govt that punishes and does not reward employment
Other nations are better than us
We revile wealth and wealth creation.
They do love sloth and idleness and sponging though and expect the hard workers to fund it all. Criminal that we now have more spongers than contributors.
...because she will be able to sue the NHS for discrimination (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) for being put on a men's ward....
For the avoidance of doubt. The SC decided that for discrimination purposes the comparator for a trans woman is a cisgender male. So
A MTF, if put on a male ward, cannot sue for direct discrimination because cisgender males are also put on a male ward., so no discrimination
A hospital, if it puts a MTF on a female ward, can be sued for indirect discrimination by a cisgender male who was not allowed to be put on the same ward.
A cisgender woman can also sue the hospital because the presence of a MTF on a female ward violates the cigender females' right to privacy, safety or dignity and thus segregation would provide a proportional means of preventing that violation (and hence achieving a legitimate aim)
I have said this before on PB: the SC was quite brutal, and the EHRC's interpretation of it ladled it on in thick layers.
That is certainly not my understanding of how the equality act works, nor is it in the EHRC's code - which essentially forces trans people into "third spaces" by saying that discrimination (against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) may take place if a trans person is forced to use a cisgendered space corresponding to their "biological" sex. Hence separate but equal. The code is quite clear on that - Dunt has the relevant paragraphs in his Substack which I urge you to read. There are, of course, exceptions and carve outs galore but frankly I'd have to read all 300 pages of the code again to have this argument with you.
I have read both the original decision and the EHRC code (in full) but it is late, and I'm tired of having to bang on about it every time Cyclefree produces another piece of transphobic bilge.
The key to understanding is that the SC said the comparator for a MTF is a cisgender male, not a cisgender woman and not a FTM either.
My points were not incompatible with your explanation, since I was only dealing with one side of the issue (MTFs not allowed in female spaces) and you were dealing with both sides (MTFs not allowed in female spaces AND MTFs not allowed in male spaces either, resulting in third spaces becoming mandatory).
Thanks for clarifying that, appreciated. AIUI it's going to be lawsuits galore, especially when section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 explicitly makes it a criminal offence to disclose a GRA holder's trans status or gender history without that individual's explicit consent. So it's going to be very interesting seeing what happens when all the trans women in large offices get called into the HR office one morning and all of a sudden start using the disabled loo.
The whole thing is a muddle, and as you know my personal preference is clarity through new primary legislation granting qualified and graduated entitlements to trans people based on medical diagnosis and surgical intervention. As well as deciding a lot more stuff (e.g. hospitals, prisons etc) on a case-by-case, risk assessed basis.
The absurdity of forcing a fully transitioned woman - with a female appearance, breasts, and a functional (sorry Turbotubbs, but they are very functional!) vagina - into a male prison where she can be sexually assaulted (and based on the US experience, will on the balance of probability, be raped multiple times) shows how far down the rabbit hole some people have gone.
I'm not the extremist here. The person publishing thread headers describing the inevitable, widespread, state sanctioned (based on the US experience) sexual assault of people with vaginas in male prisons - as "quite the victory" on the other hand...
No matter how much lipstick you put on a trans woman’s vagina, it’s still not a vagina.
1. This comment is oddly apposite when you consider what some people consider lipstick to signify 2. Vulva. The bit on the outside is the vulva. Not the vagina. I know you know what it means but the metaphor broke down 3. This thread is becoming the oddest "Yes Minister" episode ever. "You can't put lipstick on a vagina Minister because of its location. You can however put it on a vulva because..." "Shut up, Bernard"
Comments
There’s a lot of new technology on the way, and government needs to be well placed to take advantage of it. See for example what’s going on in space and in defence, as well as AI.
Government could save hundreds of billions over a Parliament by being smart with new technology.
There’s a sector of UK society that wants to radiate its middle class worthiness on these economically inactive leeches while demanding pensions are stripped to the bare bones as we have no
Money 🙄
It's probably bad news for the balance of payments, if £6bn worth of foreign money was arriving in return for bollocks sprouted abroad.
It's probably particularly good news for the government, as they currently hand over vast sums of money to these outfits to be told what was usually obvious to the man in the street after 5 minutes thought. Maybe cutting spending will prove easier than they think.
Vagueposting is so tedious
In contrast, most parties are elected on a Manifesto which is little more than a wish list of all the things they would like to do with unlimited time and resources. The tough choices are almost completely avoided and all too often policy A works contrary to policy B and vice versa. The 2024 Labour government was a classic of this kind which is why it never had any sense of direction. This did not mean it did nothing, some worthwhile things have been done, but there is no sense of purpose or priority.
With Burnham we are trying something even more radical. A new government without even a manifesto. He is going to have to disappoint a lot of people quickly. It will be a challenge to his considerable narrative skills to make this sound coherent. We can only hope he can pull it off.
Problem is public sector parasites expect it for five days full time pay but they can do the same work in four days.
Lazy bastards simply string out the work.
NEW THREAD
Other nations are better than us
We revile wealth and wealth creation.
That'll help.
2. Vulva. The bit on the outside is the vulva. Not the vagina. I know you know what it means but the metaphor broke down
3. This thread is becoming the oddest "Yes Minister" episode ever. "You can't put lipstick on a vagina Minister because of its location. You can however put it on a vulva because..." "Shut up, Bernard"