TheCat

"I knew a few established Tory voters who didn't want to vote for Johnson but equally couldn't vote for Corbyn" I'd probably fall into this demographic (although might quibble on the 'established' label, as have votes both ways in the past)....but either way, last election, I couldnt and didnt vote for either major party. Given im the one that started this thread its safe to say that Sir Kier wasnt doing much for me a year ago. I'd have to say that he's still not doing a great deal for me, as the majority of his acheivements (as listed above) seem to be mostly about internal labour politics, which dont really concern or interest me at all. All that said...his initial strategy of just showing competence, and hoping BoJo imploded seems to perhaps be paying off to some degree. Also, if the last 12 months or so if internal labour wrangling has been a win for him, then that might allow him more bandwidth to focus externally, and perhaps start to reach out/make an impact in a positive way with voters simialr to myself... The assessment above (from the ex tory MP) seems fair. Although part of me thinks by voting for Sir Kier, it is sort of like being young and single, and "settling" for a new girlfriend/boyfriend becuase you cant find anyone better. But on the other hand, if the alterntive partner is a narcissistic douche, incapable of honesty...then perhaps settling isnt so bad... I dont know. After that stream of conciousness...prob reasonable to say the jury is still out for me...but i'll watch with interest....

Sephiroth Wrote: ---------------------------------------------------- > > What makes uk think they will do this better? > Well here's something we can all agree on. It wont. (too many ethical, logisitcal, legal and political flaws). Certianly not from the perspective of successfully re-settling a large number of illegal immigrants/refugees. But to be honest, im not really sure if even those in government actually expect it to work sustainably.... But....it may be successful in two other areas....1) winning votes from anti-immigration voters, with headlines showing the govt is 'doing something'; and 2) acting as a deterrent for potential use of the people smugglers (even if its doesnt operate for very long or for very many cases). As spartacus alludes to above, if combined with the expansion of other 'legitimate' asylum pathways, then even if largely unused, the 'idea' of it actually could fulfill a purpose. Whether thats the intent or not, I've no idea.

Waseley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > To me it feels like Nazi Germany. I was going to > post earlier but felt I would offend. On further > consideration I still feel this way. I can't > recall anything so wrong from my government in my > lifetime. Apologies for my Frank views. So much like the Nazis, that something almost identical was attempted by Israel a few years back? https://inews.co.uk/news/rwanda-scheme-might-not-work-offshore-asylum-schemes-failures-1577123 Look, I dont like this plan much either. But perhaps dial back on the hyperbole?

This gave me a chuckle from Matt this morning....

Imagine how upset he must be that its not endorsed by the madman sephiroth from EDF.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Britain shook itself free of the European Union > and became a full democracy once again, an outcome > which had seemed impossible almost until the > moment it happened. " > > sure. sure Without doubt thats OTT/emotive language he's used there in support of his position Not really a crime that you're massively unfamiliar with yourslef, Seph?:)

As i've said repeatedely, Brexit itself doesn really do anything. Its the post-Brexit policy-making that will actually determine the success or failure of Brexit. And I'd have to give this government a D minus with regard to post brexit policy making, and thats being kind. So (believe it or not) im in agreement with DR here (if not on the overall brexit issue!) that Sir Keir has an opportunity to hammer the government with areas that they beleive are brexit policy opportunities...for both short and long term benefit (or if you're of a very very anti-brexit persuasion, lets just call it short and long term damage limitation....the overall opporunity for labour to make a mark is the same regardless of how its lablled). Seperaltey....say what you like about David Frost...and I dont agree with everythign the man has done or said....but in his article in the telegraph today (below) his views are lagreley aligned with my own on this issue... Beware, Remainers are regrouping It is so important to get on with our own reforms to improve productivity and growth. All the levers are now in our hands DAVID FROST 6 April 2022 ? 9:30pm The Brexit battle seems long over. The titanic debates after the referendum, in which both Remainers and Brexiteers played to sweep the board, seemingly ended with near-total victory for the advocates of a real Brexit. With a supreme effort, Britain shook itself free of the European Union and became a full democracy once again, an outcome which had seemed impossible almost until the moment it happened. The grand new free trade agreement we had been told would take 10 years to agree was put in place in 10 months. And the behaviour of the EU in 2021, from subverting the Northern Ireland Protocol to rubbishing the Astrazeneca vaccine, left few people interested in refighting old battles. And yet. On the fringes of politics the unreconciled Remainers are regrouping. The #brexitshambles hashtag is seen once again on Twitter. Andrew Adonis?s European Movement says that ?Brexit has failed. We were lied to. It?s time to rethink?. Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, says ?the effect on growth from Brexit is tangible?. Lord Barwell, the former Downing Street chief of staff, is even trying to rehabilitate his and Theresa May?s terrible backstop deal from 2019. Sir Keir Starmer can see that getting too close to any of these people will make him about as welcome in the Red Wall as Vladimir Putin in downtown Kyiv. Nevertheless he can?t ignore his supporters and therefore has to say that ?a poorly thought-through Brexit is holding Britain back?. Of course there is little chance of a serious ?rejoin? campaign developing in the short term. Remainer Jacobitism in support of Ursula von der Leyen as the queen over the water is just too unpopular. The leaders of the pro-EU cause recognise that themselves. Instead, their aim is to keep us aligned with the EU, often using the Northern Ireland Protocol as a weapon. They know that if the UK doesn?t diverge much from EU law, it will be much easier to take us back in later if events work in their favour. To do this they have to get it established in the public mind that somehow Brexit is ?already failing?, and thus destroy our nerve to do things our own way. Their picture of Britain is not the one the rest of us see: living with Covid successfully, leading on Ukraine, coming out of the economic downturn faster than Germany, and with PMI business confidence levels higher than the eurozone or the US. Instead, they try to suggest that, whatever problems the world has, we in Britain have them worse. They use any argument that comes to hand. Last autumn it was HGV drivers and the threat to the Christmas turkey supply chain. This month the story is the latest trade figures and delays at Dover (the latter caused, in fact, by the withdrawal of P&O ships). A chart has been circulating showing that our trade performance has been stagnating since Brexit. In reality, it is almost impossible to draw any firm conclusions from the trade figures amid the noise of recovery from the pandemic, trade re-routing, and methodological change. But to the extent one can, the picture is reassuring. To get a sense of the orders of magnitude, goods exports to the EU in the last three months of 2018 ? the last relatively normal year ? were ?43.2 billion. In the last three months of 2021, the figure was ?42.4 billion ? a fall of 2 per cent. Exports to the rest of the world over the same period grew by just under 4 per cent. So maybe the short-run Brexit effect is 5-6 per cent, with every chance of catching up further as traders continue to get used to the new arrangements. Hardly the catastrophe that many are claiming. In any case, what matters is not trade, but economic growth. Here Remainers point to this month?s OBR assessment that GDP will be 4 per cent lower in 2030 than it otherwise would have been. This is of course not a fact but a prediction, though the distinction seems lost on many. Moreover it is a prediction based on an assumption: that higher trade causes higher productivity. But the association is just as plausibly the other way round. The link between trade and productivity growth found in many analyses of Brexit is often based on evidence from emerging markets or ex-Communist economies, where increased trade went with huge improvements in the way the countries were run more broadly. It doesn?t hold up anything like so clearly for advanced economies. Indeed, the UK?s own trade openness has grown since the financial crash, but productivity has not. Of course, no sensible person would deny that leaving the single market and customs union has some effect on trade in the short run. I have always been clear about this. The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, repeated it this week. That is why it is so important to get on with our own domestic reforms to improve productivity and growth. All the levers are now in our hands and this really must be the Government?s priority in the upcoming Queen?s Speech. Sir Ivan Rogers ? another voice from the past ? commented this week that ?History did not end with David Frost?s Trade and Cooperation Agreement?. He is right. Most of us welcome the cooperative approach we and the EU have taken over Ukraine and would like to see more of it. Our treaty framework can indeed be developed further, in areas such as cooperation between our regulators, youth mobility, or visa facilitation for artists. (Indeed we sought some of these in 2020 but were rebuffed or only offered them on unacceptable terms.) We should always be ready to talk about these things. For the EU, the question that will then need answering is, if the terms can be improved, why is the Northern Ireland Protocol sacrosanct? In truth it is of course far too soon to draw any of the conclusions the ex-Remain movement would like to. Our destiny is in our hands and it is up to us to do the right things. The economist Tim Worstall noted this week that ?the EU had 1973 to 2020 to show that UK membership was a good idea. 47 years. Let?s measure Brexit by that same standard.? I agree. If we must, let?s revisit the question in 2067. Meanwhile, let?s get on with the job.

Good shout on Homeland. With the end of Damien Lewis's storyline, so should the show have ended. And speaking of lewis....I'd add Billions to the list. First season or two were great. Now its so convoluted, with the characters becoming comic book caricatures of their former selves....i've tried twice to recommit to keep watching...and have twice failed....

I've recently been re-watching House of Cards again, just finished the first series, and I've got to say it was a brilliant show, particualrly that first series (Now I know that Kevin Spacey became persona non-gratia...but that doesn't erase his brilliant performances as Frank Underwood). But as the show dragged on (even before the spacey news blew up) the show went downhill, particularly from about season 3....and sort of faded off into obscurity. Going from a show that everyone was talking about to one where most people I know haven't even seen the last series.... Anyway...got me thinking about shows that started off absolutely brilliantly, but then just ended poorly, or limped along for ages never quite recapturing their appeal....some obvious series that come to mind... The Walking Dead - nothing was ever the same as series 1 for mine, but for a few series it held its own and was the biggest show on TV for a few years in the US.....now season 11 is so poorly written, its almost unwatchable and highly laughable in places.... Game of Thrones - as has been well commented on in social and mainstream media alive...after the showrunners were forced to move ahead of the source material, what was the biggest show on TV (probably globally) torched its legacy with the last 2 series....rushing the whole thing to a conclusion thus leaving the viewer relatively unstaisifed with the 'payoff' after years of careful build-up After Life - the concept behind a black comedy about a main greiving for his wife was a clever blend of emtion and comedy, and Rickey Gervais shows always have some brilliantly funny, quirky characters. But now in its 3rd (and final) season, there's only so many times I can watch a man drinking wine and wallowing watching videos of his dead wife..the idea was a one series idea for mine. On the flip side...for me series that managed to maintain quality (for the most part anyway, there's always gonna be a couple of weak episodes) for their entire run.....Breaking Bad (in fact the first series was probably the worst, so a bit the opposite!) and The Sopranos.... Any other thoughts from the crowd? On shows that started strong and faded Just a bit of fun...no judgement on anyone's tastes in TV shows please:)

Unfortunately Mal, I think that all we're probably likely to see is some increased noise from various activist and charity groups in the lead-up and during the world cup. Accompanied by various platitudes from government about 'urging the qatairis to improve...blah blah blah... But at the end of the day, most of the population will say something like 'thats terrible, somebody should do something....what time is kickoff?'.... As uncomfortable as it is to admit for many...I reckon much will also depend on how deep England go in the tournament. Think back to the Euro tournament, how covid rules were altered or ignored for live events as england marched towards the final....and that was when people in this country were dying.... If england start getting towards the pointy end, the excitement will drown out any concern for the deaths of some foreign construction workers in Qatar. However, if England exit early....then the media will fill the space with concern about human rights in qatar. And it will be branded as the world cup that 'no one' wanted to win, and should be quickly forgotten....again, only if england are out....

What?

Yes, its still a minefield... According to the Graun, criticism of will smith's actions on oscar night are probably driven by racism....FFS... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/29/white-outrage-about-will-smiths-slap-is-rooted-in-anti-blackness-its-inequality-in-plain-sight

I previously was very pro-war and pro-nuclear weapons, couldnt get enough of them. Until I became aware that the Dalai Lama and some physicists were against them. Turns out that war is good for, uhh, absolutley nothing! Who knew. Im sure vladimir putin will have a similar epiphany once he reads the letter.

What science are you referring to JohnL?

Talking plainly on a forum about the entire issue of 'people born as one gender and idenifying as another' sort of does require clear language though, as we cant just 'ignore' that transwomen were born male, as the specific issue we are discussing is 'trans' part.... I'd suggest that debate specifically about trans-issues on an anonymous internet forum is very different from misgendering a transperson who you might know and work with......

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I don't care what you call yourself, where you > take a piss, or what you do or don't have hanging > between your legs - as long as you are nice to me > and others. > And herein lies a massive problem with this whole debate... I would think that overwhelming majority of people who you and Bic Basher would chacaterise as 'GC' would AGREE with your comment above. I certainly havent seen anyone commenting on this thread (even the much demonised oimissus) suggest that transpeople dont have a right to be who they want to be.... The issues arise when there is potential impacts on other groups. Whether that be in the context of womens spaces, approriate healthcare or sports competition....having a sensible discussion on how to alleviate the legitimate concerns of other groups should in no way deny the trans-community its human rights.... But time and time again...raising some practical concerns gets conflated with 'hatred'.....and instantly dismissed... > So much hatred on this thread. I'm out. Honestly...if you cant even bring yourself to engage with people on this thread becuase of some of the things they have said. Perhaps you should reassess who is actually harbouring hatred for whom....

Response to fishbiscuits second point and oimissus's last post as well.... Its the 'womens space' issue that causes the most emotive responses in general. Im sure that the lionshare of people out there would agree that the lionshare of transwomen are no threat to women and girls. Just as the lionshare of men are no threat to women and girls. But, as recent publicity on things like violence against women has shown - unfortatley our society cant just work on the 'lionshare'. We have to legislate/regulate for the small percentage of men that fark it up for the rest of us. The technical term is, of course, 'safeguarding' So, how do we safeguard womens spaces (and sports competitions for that matter) against the small minority of people born male, who might fark it up for the rest of the trans community?

I tend to agree with fishbiscuits on this one. Oimissus, you can see that most my posts are actually baordly supportive of many of your concerns. I totally get that you're passionate, and I dont think anything you've factually said is inappropriate in isolation, its the overall the tone can put others off, and I'd argue that dialling back some of the delivery might be useful in getting more people to engage...if that is indeed what you want... I beleive I would (and have) said the same to people at the other end of the debate...thats just my 2 cents, and its not about 'silencing' anyone of course, lets call it tempering:)

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > are for some reason scared of trans women in > changing rooms and loos. > . Umm....is this a p1sstake? 'For some turgid, quivering reason' would have been funnier.... (I should be clear, im not making comment on the validity or not of the loos/change rooms argument..(thats a hornets nest I dont have the energy to kick right now). Im more amazed that someone can seriously claim to not understand (for 'some' reason?!!!) why other people may think differently on this issue. And therefore use that as reason to just call them all bigots.)

Im no fan of Boris or most of this government. And I certainly agree that the refugee process has been a total shambles, and needs swift overhaul. But I think its a little unfair that many of these comments seem to imply that the UK government have basically done nothing practical or usefule to help. The UK army has been training Ukraine forces since 2015, with boots on the ground. They have supplied 100's of millions of pounds worth of military equipment (at a time when germany was prevaricating about wether to send a few thousand helmets). This contribution and assistance has specifically been singled out by both the current ukrainian president and the former Ukrainian president. Yes, the regugee 'programme' is a disgrace. And I know its verboten on this focum to say anything at all positive about this government without being branded (insert approriate slur here), but the government has done plenty more than many other coutnries to help.

oimissus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and a human can?t > become a cat. > > Well. Now I'm truly offended.

DR....given you seem to actually agree with oimissus that there is indeed a large debate to be had....Why sacrifice discussing the plethora of things there are to discuss becuase oimissus wants to call a transwoman a man? Can you not just say that you dont agree with that approach, and think its insensitive; then engage on everything else that requires discussion?

Perhaps a slight exaggeration to use the example of a jockey as 'proof' that concerns around unfair advanatge I sport has been 'blown out of the water'? I would argue that the evidence of superior physical performance of millions of male athletes, across hundreds of different sports probably consititues are more convincing body of evidence than your single jockey example....but perhaps that just me be transphobic?

What does seem very bizaare about this entire issue is the refusal of the trans-lobby to often discuss broader concerns that other groups may have. In the process, painting any concerns, or questions (no matter how minor or valid) as evidence of 'transphobia'. In that context, Inoticed this article below this morning when virtually flicking through the sunday papers... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/19/great-ormond-street-cancels-trainee-doctor-conference-trans/ Surely its a serious concern, when trainee medical professionals (who may have to deal with gender id or related issues at some point in their professional career) were hoping to organise a thoughtful debate about gender issues, end up having to cancel the event becuase trans activisits seemingly refuse to engage with people with a different perspective.

Thanks Beck. Now's there's a campaign I can get on board with!