18-OCT 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 28% / LDM 9% / REF 7%

[neilj]

Dec 12, 2023 8:38:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Dec 12, 2023 8:08:05 GMT neilj said:

What gets me he claims he wants the UK to be a global centre/powerhouse for A1/TECH but wants us to believe he's not capable of doing the very simple job of transferring messages across to his new phone
He must think we're idiots

instead of debates, we could have potential leaders doing tasks on telly, like transferring data between phones, analysing antibody data and what it really says about infection rates, assessing the prospects of different battery paradigms, conducting experiments on mask efficacy, and modelling a complex system in software. (Like the Krypton Factor meets The Apprentice. Losers have to eat bugs in the jungle)

With the level of skill required to transfer messages it's more akin to being able to fill your car up at a petrol station...although thinking about that Sunak struggled to do that aswell 😀

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 12, 2023 9:30:34 GMT neilj said:

Dec 12, 2023 8:38:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

instead of debates, we could have potential leaders doing tasks on telly, like transferring data between phones, analysing antibody data and what it really says about infection rates, assessing the prospects of different battery paradigms, conducting experiments on mask efficacy, and modelling a complex system in software. (Like the Krypton Factor meets The Apprentice. Losers have to eat bugs in the jungle)

With the level of skill required to transfer messages it's more akin to being able to fill your car up at a petrol station...although thinking about that Sunak struggled to do that aswell 😀

yes well he’s used to being carted around in helicopters. 

[crossbat11]

Assuming he has been asked to give evidence at the COVID Inquiry, I'm greatly looking forward to hearing the football-metaphor laced testimony of Boston United fan and former Deputy Chief Medical Officer Sir Jonathan Van-Tam.

It won't just be, I hope, " hit the ball back of the net Your Honour" when describing the vaccine research and roll-out programme but I'm expecting some rather more obtuse metaphors.

Maybe, when asked about the lack of positive role-modelling at Downing Street during lockdown, and how this undermined public confidence and lockdown observance, he might say something along these lines.

"Well, Your Honour, I saw it a bit like this. Imagine you're a young professional footballer and you're away with your team on a pre-season tour. It's taking place in an exotic location with plenty of extra-curricular attractions. You are away from your family, training and working hard all day and you are in need of some relaxation. The Manager, who likes a drink or two himself, has relaxed the evening curfew and allowed a few beers and young ladies to pay a late evening visit to the team hotel. Does it effect playing performance or help it? Is morale and team camaraderie boosted? If what goes on on tour stays on tour, what harm does it do? OK, the Manager got sacked a few months later and the team were relegated that season but the tour was a success."

Your Honour and the questioning QC looked non-plussed by this response and quickly moved on. Which was exactly Van-Tams's intention in replying in the way that he did



Confucius, as Greavsie, pays a long overdue visit to the Inquiry.

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Dec 11, 2023 17:01:06 GMT neilj said:

Redfield Wilton

"Labour leads by 18% nationally, marking two years since the Conservatives last led in our polling.

Westminster VI (10 Dec):

Labour 43% (+1)
Conservative 25% (-1)
Lib Dem 13% (+1)
Reform 11% (+1)
Green 5% (-1)
SNP 2% (-1)
Other 1% (+1)

Changes +/- 3 Dec"

While I was mulling my time away in the hull of a Barbary Pirate ship last week, I was reflecting on the nature of the Reform UK vote and the DK 2019 Tory VI. A couple of times there has been a debate on here as to the question of race in regards to VI and Sunak. There is undeniably a type of voter for which this is an issue, and they are more likely to be both older voters and voted Tory in '19. I am assuming that the rise in support for Reform is in part attributable to this factor, as is a portion of the DK. Therefore, any assumption that a Tory recovery can be fuelled by gobbling up the Reform vote (like Johnson did in the months before the '19 GE with UKIP and the Brexit Party) is to my mind flawed. At best I think you could see gaining about 3% from a squeeze on Reform during a campaign, getting them to around 30% - given that the indicators point to Labour polling in the low 40% range, still looking like a landslide for Starmer.

The mess the Tories have got themselves into in regards to Immigration policy, which is supposed to be a Tory issue, also inhibits Sunak's ability to regain lost ground with voters who are moving towards Reform. 

[steve]

"Rwanda bill 'inconsistent' with ECHR, says parliament's joint committee on human rights
Parliament’s joint committee on human rights, which is cross-party and chaired by Labour’s Harriet Harman, has published its own briefing on the human rights concerns raised by the Rwanda bill. (It is described as the “chair’s briefing paper”, but the press release implies its a briefing from the whole committee.)

The briefing argues that the bill is “inconsistent” with the European convention on human rights. It says:

The bill would require all domestic courts to accept that Rwanda is safe and not to consider any review or appeal brought on the grounds that it is not – even if there is compelling evidence in support. This raises difficult constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law. It would prevent the courts considering arguable claims that removal to Rwanda is unsafe, which would expose individuals to a risk of their fundamental rights not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment being violated, and is inconsistent with the right to an effective remedy guaranteed under article 13 ECHR [European convention on human rights].

The requirement that all decision-makers conclusively treat Rwanda as safe applies notwithstanding laws including key provisions of the Human Rights Act. This would permit public authorities to act incompatibly with convention rights, which would be inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Disapplying the HRA in respect of a particular cohort runs contrary to the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.

While the bill can alter domestic law, parliament cannot legislate away the UK’s obligations in international law including the prohibition on refoulement under the Refugee Convention and the ECHR. Under the ECHR, any individual who is selected for removal to Rwanda is able to make an application to the European court of human rights (ECtHR) and the UK will be bound by that court’s judgment. 

The ECtHR has the power to issue interim measures, effectively an order requiring states to refrain from taking certain action while a human rights claim is considered. They have done so previously, preventing the initial flights to Rwanda. The bill would provide that a minister, and only a minister, may choose whether or not to comply with interim measures. Since interim measures have been held to be binding under the ECHR, this provision purports to permit a minister to act in breach of international law. "

Sunakered may think he can just announce that a dog is actually a cat but it won't make it Meow

[lens]

Dec 11, 2023 21:47:07 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions
Poll surveying more than 2,000 people over 18 finds those aged 25 to 42 most likely to back restrictions

“The polling asked adults whether they would back or oppose the Government reintroducing restrictions if the country’s health situation demanded it.

The poll, carried out by research group More in Common, surveyed more than 2,000 people over the age of 18................................

“The majority of those polled said they were opposed to the reintroduction of any restrictions, with 48 per cent somewhat or strongly against face mask rules on public transport and 61 per cent somewhat or strongly opposed to closing nightclubs.”

Telegraph

Sometimes I really have to wonder about the people who devise opinion polls. What exactly does "if the country’s health situation demanded it" mean?

What would I answer if asked that question? If that phrase meant a situation such as in early 2020 I'd probably agree with bringing in some form of lockdown type restrictions. But as things are at the moment, certainly not. So where to draw the line?

And a strange way for them to present the survey - "Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions" tends to imply support - whereas "The majority of those polled said they were opposed to the reintroduction of any restrictions" actually shows the opposite - especially if people are interpreting "country’s health situation demanded it" as a situation as Spring or Christmas time 2020! I read that as a pretty overwhelming opinium AGAINST any form of further restriction, regardless of the situation - shouldn't the first line be "about half would oppose further restrictions no matter the countrys health situation" to better reflact the detail of the survey!?

[alec]

crossbat11 - 'Pleased for the lads. We all gave it 200%. It took us a while to adapt to a new system but they left nothing out there (apart from the 200,000 dead bodies). I don't remember too much about it {the vaccine roll out} but Bingsie {Kate Bingham} shouted "the Europeans are off their line - just welly it" so I did and it hit the net.'

OK, I think that's enough.

On the NHS approach to information:

I'm trying to avoid a conspiracy mindset, but I'm getting deeply suspicious about NHS communications. I flagged up last week the bizarre behaviour displayed in the first 'winter watch' weekly bulletin from NHS Providers (all this relates only to NHS England) where they made quite a fuss over some very modest numbers of flu and RSV bed occupant numbers, but completely failed to report on the covid bed numbers, which had increased markedly and which were almost precisely 10 times greater than the flu numbers (twice as many as flu, RSV and norovirus combined).

I'm now seeing this - www.england.nhs.uk/2023/11/hundreds-of-patients-in-hospital-with-norovirus-ahead-of-winter/

This is notable, as the NHS is reporting all 'diarrhoea and vomiting symptoms' as if they were norovirus, claiming in the headline "Hundreds of patients in hospital with norovirus ahead of winter", claiming that numbers are up by 178% on last year.

The problem is that they just aren't. Data from the UKHSA for the same period www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-norovirus-and-rotavirus-surveillance-reports-2023-to-2024-season/national-norovirus-and-rotavirus-report-week-49-report-data-up-to-week-47-26-november-2023 shows that norovirus activity is well below average, and this data includes hospital outbreaks.

What appears to be the case is that the NHS is claiming all cases of diarrhoea and vomiting as norovirus, which is clearly misleading.

What makes this interesting is that the JN.1 covid variant now sweeping through appears to be more significantly geared to infection in the gut. This is to do with a marked acceleration in it's ability to utilizing cleaved ACE2, receptors, which are very common in the gut and other organs, but less common in the lungs, where uncleaved ACE2 is more common. This is why Omicron appeared to become milder, because it didn't affect the lungs so much, but is actually having greater effects on other systems. JN.1 has markedly accelerated this trend.

It would seem a likely hypothesis that covid is responsible for more diarrhoea and vomiting than was previously observed with earlier variants, and this could explain why we have what appears to be a large non-norovirus increase in hospitalisations with diarrhoea and vomiting.

While I am trying to resist this sense, it is getting harder and harder to avoid the conclusion that the NHS is seeking to downplay the effects of covid. That would fit with numerous anecdotal reports of frontline staff refusing to test patients or enter LFT positive self test results onto patient records.

I don't think this is a sensible or tenable approach.

[neilj]

Really, will they stick with this?
It's a rerun of Brexit, with those on the tory right taking a hardline and being rewarded with cosy chats and bacon rolls
Meanwhile centralists are ignored because they've already rolled over and ask for their tummies to be rubbed

[neilj]

This is where we have got to, withdrawing our last Minister from COP 28 to try and save the Bill
Never mind the existential danger to our planet, saving what Cleverly called a 'bat shit crazy' scheme takes priority

[alec]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67541581

"Could there be a gold rush for buried hydrogen?"

Err...no.

It would be a 'hydrogen rush'.

[athena]

Apologies for a long, self-indulgent post. It's really my personal stock-take of the electoral options.

I started reading and contributing to this site partly because I'd completely lost touch with politics. I rather liked being a low-information member of the electorate, but when I realised I didn't know who the leader of the LDs was I thought I ought to re-engage at least long enough to make an informed decision about what to do with my vote at the next GE.

My most surprising realisation has been that constitutional reform, starting with a codified constitution is crucial to a lot of the political changes I consider most important. In the context of climate policy and environmental protections it's horrifying that any government that can muster a simple majority in the HoC can unpick legislation with long-term objectives enacted by a previous government. When this extends to unpicking international obligations I worry that other countries may regard us as unreliable partners and hesitate to enter into agreements with us. The EU might feel friendly towards Starmer and optimistic about relations with the UK under a Starmer premiership, but it'll be looking over his shoulder at potential successors. I also want radical decentralisation and the creation of a federal UK. Not piecemeal, grace and favour devolution, where power is delegated by Westminster and ultimate control still rests with the centre, but formal, permanent decentralisation such that certain powers are exercised, as of right, by elected governments in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and NI (unless NI prefers to join the Irish Republic). I can't see how we get to that point without a codified constitution.

I made a point of following the recent Lab conference, on the basis that it would be a good guide to the platform on which the party will fight the next GE and the policy programme Starmer will present if elected. None of the individual policies were new, but the presentation and emphasis clarified for me what Starmer stands for much more than I expected. My first reaction to his big speech was that he sounded incredibly old-fashioned. He's offering 20th century strategies for improving social mobility because he simply doesn't get the urgency and magnitude of the climate and biodiversity crises and still thinks they can be relegated and be tackled within the current economic framework. As well as being fundamentally misguided, his approach is short-sighted even on its own terms, because climate catastrophe will of course hit the poorest individuals and communities hardest. His climate myopia is particularly depressing because he made a point of saying that his renewal project would take more than one electoral cycle.

Recently I've been trying to tell myself that a Green vote would be interpeted as a vote for stronger action on climate and biodiversity, that it would be the best way to indicate that I want these crises prioritised and that the party's other policies don't matter because they're not what the party is known for and there's no chance that the Greens will win in my constituency. But after they garnered headlines for disaffiliating Green Party Women I can't bring myself to give them my vote.

It saddens and puzzles me that on something as fundamental as sex-based rights I find myself divided from so many people that are normally on the same political side but this is going to be a dealbreaker issue for me. Half the population is female, we're female all our lives, we still live in a patriarchal society and too often our sex shapes (disfigures would probably be more a accurate term) our life experiences more than any of characteristics that we prefer to think of as central our identity, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect a political party that wants my vote to recognise that sex matters.

(To pre-empt the argument that polling suggests that sex-based rights are an important issue only for a small percentage of voters, I suspect this is partly because there's not much political choice. Voting Tory is not an option for most gender-critical feminists because, whilst the Tories are in a better position on sex-based rights, the party has a generally poor record on equality and women's issues - although May was responsible for some ground-breaking legislation on domestic abuse - and most of the openly sexist, misogynist MPs sit on its benches.)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 12, 2023 11:31:27 GMT lens said:

Dec 11, 2023 21:47:07 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions
Poll surveying more than 2,000 people over 18 finds those aged 25 to 42 most likely to back restrictions

“The polling asked adults whether they would back or oppose the Government reintroducing restrictions if the country’s health situation demanded it.

The poll, carried out by research group More in Common, surveyed more than 2,000 people over the age of 18................................

“The majority of those polled said they were opposed to the reintroduction of any restrictions, with 48 per cent somewhat or strongly against face mask rules on public transport and 61 per cent somewhat or strongly opposed to closing nightclubs.”

Telegraph

And a strange way for them to present the survey - "Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions" tends to imply support - whereas "The majority of those polled said they were opposed to the reintroduction of any restrictions" actually shows the opposite - especially if people are interpreting "country’s health situation demanded it" as a situation as Spring or Christmas time 2020!

Yes that did catch the eye. (Maybe they think it remarkable that anyone - apart from alec  obvs - is still bothered?)

[alec]

c-a-r-f-r-e-w /crossbat11 - odd reporting indeed on that poll.

While 48% were "somewhat or strongly against face mask rules on public transport", 45% were strongly (16%) or somewhat (29%) in favour, so it's evenly balanced. I'm actually gobsmacked that 20% would agree with closing restaurants and 13% shutting nightclubs.

But it is heartening to see so many still showing concern for themselves and those around them, when we are repeatedly told we've moved on.

One very odd observation however is where this is being reported; The Telegraph, the Express and GB News. A trio of right wing outlets all giving this coverage, while I can't find anything elsewhere. I have no idea what that means, but the headlines are odd too; GB News "Covid: Return of lockdown measures backed by extraordinary number of people ", Express "Fifth of Brits would be in favour of reintroducing Covid restrictions in the future", Telegraph "Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions".

Something is afoot.

I'd also express my dismay at the daftness of the questions. We do desperately need mitigations, but we're well past the mitigations the survey focused on.

I'd like to see some polling on things like mandatory indoor air quality, making employers liable for infections at work, use of masks in healthcare settings, government support for investment in HEPA/UV filters, better sick pay, support for testing etc etc.

I suspect once the public gets to see what the actual practical protections look like, rather than the knee jerk closures and shutting things down, then everyone would be able to see that there is actually quite widespread support for measures that keep people healthier and prevent sickness.

[neilj]

Raising the salience of immigration when you are doing so badly may not be the best strategy

[neilj]

Interesting analysis and may be good news for Steve and the Libdems

[steve]

" the UK public are sick and tired of people arriving from France in small boats. "

[Dave]

Dec 11, 2023 19:51:05 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

You lot really are something - I haven't posted for two weeks and not a bit of concern from anyone of you as to the possible state of my condition. What a bunch of misogynists gits - if I was a retired ROC posters there would have been at least three pages of posts contemplating my fate. I could have been kidnapped by Barberry Pirates for all you lot know or care.

I missed you Lulu but I wasn't worried about you.  I'd put your absence down to a combination of you being on a massive bender after we destroyed Tottenham on their own patch last week plus you being stuck under Hammersmith Bridge with a couple of hundred of our finest ...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-67680559

Were there Barbary pilots in charge of that boat?  More likely Burberry pirates if I know some of our lot.

In all seriousness, welcome back.  Whilst appreciating much of your post, I couldn't give it a 'like'.  I fully get the concern and frustration about Labour's tone at the moment.  I share some of it.  But I'm still with the likes of Batty on this.  My absolute priority on this is getting the Tories out.  Whatever comes next HAS to be better for people in this country and for the sake of the future of our politics and the esteem it's held in on our islands.  Was it Rachel Reeves who said something along the lines of we haven't waited this long to get into power to do nothing?   I will cling to that, and hope not to look a mug for doing so, at a later date. 

Labour will be constrained by what they will inherit but I have no doubt that it will ALWAYS have better intentions and better instincts with regards to trying to look after majority of people in these lands.  That really is the biggie for me.   

[mercian]

Dec 12, 2023 8:51:28 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Dec 12, 2023 0:17:30 GMT mercian said:

It's just experience of life. I'm not as naive as I once was and as you still are apparently.

Hi Mercian, a few year ago for work, I did some research into deterrents. The big four had done quite a bit on this. From memory approximately 60-70%, will tend to inherently follow the rules/law, for around 20% its down to opportunity circumstance, and there is about 10% who have a tendency to actively seek to manipulate, cheat and steal etc. So deterrents are actually primarily aimed at the odd 20% that can be influenced. This also links to research in regards to sociopaths etc, where it is estimated approx 5% of the population (disproportionally men) have this characteristic. One should note, that for many sociopathy is driven more by environmental factors rather than genetic, so the figures should not seem to be static. 

Very interesting. By the way I wasn't suggesting that most people are dishonest as domjg seemed to think and I am slightly surprised that the figures for dishonesty are that high, so perhaps I still am a bit naive.  But pretending to have views different to your real ones to get into a TV programme is hardly criminal behaviour, and I just think that strongly politically motivated people might be tempted to play the system.

[leftieliberal]

Dec 11, 2023 19:51:05 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

 I could have been kidnapped by Barberry Pirates for all you lot know or care.

Being kidnapped by Barberry Pirates would be good for your health!

www.healthline.com/nutrition/barberries

Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

[steve]

Yvette Cooper forensically obliterating the regime's ludicrous Rwanda gimmick.

[mercian]

Dec 12, 2023 9:30:34 GMT neilj said:

Dec 12, 2023 8:38:47 GMT c-a-r-f-r-e-w said:

instead of debates, we could have potential leaders doing tasks on telly, like transferring data between phones, analysing antibody data and what it really says about infection rates, assessing the prospects of different battery paradigms, conducting experiments on mask efficacy, and modelling a complex system in software. (Like the Krypton Factor meets The Apprentice. Losers have to eat bugs in the jungle)

With the level of skill required to transfer messages it's more akin to being able to fill your car up at a petrol station...although thinking about that Sunak struggled to do that aswell 😀

He probably has staff to do routine tasks for him. I wonder if he has a valet dress him, like Charlie-boy does?

[thylacine]

Dec 12, 2023 14:05:47 GMT mercian said:

Dec 12, 2023 9:30:34 GMT neilj said:

With the level of skill required to transfer messages it's more akin to being able to fill your car up at a petrol station...although thinking about that Sunak struggled to do that aswell 😀

He probably has staff to do routine tasks for him. I wonder if he has a valet dress him, like Charlie-boy does?

That valet needs to be told it's time for some big boy trousers!

[neilj]

Dec 12, 2023 13:58:22 GMT mercian said:

Dec 12, 2023 8:51:28 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

Hi Mercian, a few year ago for work, I did some research into deterrents. The big four had done quite a bit on this. From memory approximately 60-70%, will tend to inherently follow the rules/law, for around 20% its down to opportunity circumstance, and there is about 10% who have a tendency to actively seek to manipulate, cheat and steal etc. So deterrents are actually primarily aimed at the odd 20% that can be influenced. This also links to research in regards to sociopaths etc, where it is estimated approx 5% of the population (disproportionally men) have this characteristic. One should note, that for many sociopathy is driven more by environmental factors rather than genetic, so the figures should not seem to be static. 

Very interesting. By the way I wasn't suggesting that most people are dishonest as domjg seemed to think and I am slightly surprised that the figures for dishonesty are that high, so perhaps I still am a bit naive.  But pretending to have views different to your real ones to get into a TV programme is hardly criminal behaviour, and I just think that strongly politically motivated people might be tempted to play the system.

If true makes you wonder how much worse it would be if not for tories pretending to be Labour supporters 😀

[leftieliberal]

Dec 12, 2023 12:43:08 GMT athena said:

Apologies for a long, self-indulgent post. It's really my personal stock-take of the electoral options.

I started reading and contributing to this site partly because I'd completely lost touch with politics. I rather liked being a low-information member of the electorate, but when I realised I didn't know who the leader of the LDs was I thought I ought to re-engage at least long enough to make an informed decision about what to do with my vote at the next GE.

My most surprising realisation has been that constitutional reform, starting with a codified constitution is crucial to a lot of the political changes I consider most important. In the context of climate policy and environmental protections it's horrifying that any government that can muster a simple majority in the HoC can unpick legislation with long-term objectives enacted by a previous government. When this extends to unpicking international obligations I worry that other countries may regard us as unreliable partners and hesitate to enter into agreements with us. The EU might feel friendly towards Starmer and optimistic about relations with the UK under a Starmer premiership, but it'll be looking over his shoulder at potential successors. I also want radical decentralisation and the creation of a federal UK. Not piecemeal, grace and favour devolution, where power is delegated by Westminster and ultimate control still rests with the centre, but formal, permanent decentralisation such that certain powers are exercised, as of right, by elected governments in the English regions, Scotland, Wales and NI (unless NI prefers to join the Irish Republic). I can't see how we get to that point without a codified constitution.

I made a point of following the recent Lab conference, on the basis that it would be a good guide to the platform on which the party will fight the next GE and the policy programme Starmer will present if elected. None of the individual policies were new, but the presentation and emphasis clarified for me what Starmer stands for much more than I expected. My first reaction to his big speech was that he sounded incredibly old-fashioned. He's offering 20th century strategies for improving social mobility because he simply doesn't get the urgency and magnitude of the climate and biodiversity crises and still thinks they can be relegated and be tackled within the current economic framework. As well as being fundamentally misguided, his approach is short-sighted even on its own terms, because climate catastrophe will of course hit the poorest individuals and communities hardest. His climate myopia is particularly depressing because he made a point of saying that his renewal project would take more than one electoral cycle.

Recently I've been trying to tell myself that a Green vote would be interpeted as a vote for stronger action on climate and biodiversity, that it would be the best way to indicate that I want these crises prioritised and that the party's other policies don't matter because they're not what the party is known for and there's no chance that the Greens will win in my constituency. But after they garnered headlines for disaffiliating Green Party Women I can't bring myself to give them my vote.

It saddens and puzzles me that on something as fundamental as sex-based rights I find myself divided from so many people that are normally on the same political side but this is going to be a dealbreaker issue for me. Half the population is female, we're female all our lives, we still live in a patriarchal society and too often our sex shapes (disfigures would probably be more a accurate term) our life experiences more than any of characteristics that we prefer to think of as central our identity, so I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect a political party that wants my vote to recognise that sex matters.

(To pre-empt the argument that polling suggests that sex-based rights are an important issue only for a small percentage of voters, I suspect this is partly because there's not much political choice. Voting Tory is not an option for most gender-critical feminists because, whilst the Tories are in a better position on sex-based rights, the party has a generally poor record on equality and women's issues - although May was responsible for some ground-breaking legislation on domestic abuse - and most of the openly sexist, misogynist MPs sit on its benches.)

Sadly, I cannot recommend that you vote for my party despite our position on Constitutional Reform. Back in March at our Spring Conference, the Conference Committee had accepted for debate a motion by a number of women in the Party on this very subject. The trans-activists there chose to bring a procedural motion so that the debate was not even allowed to take place. I was in a training session at the time, so only heard about it afterwards, but denying members the freedom to debate the issue struck me as illiberal. Even if a majority of the members disagree with the motion it should be debated and then voted down, not simply blocked from even being debated.

[steve]

athena

Interesting post

"Half the population is female"

Just pointing out that two thirds of my parties parliamentary representation and over half our councillors are women.

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 12, 2023 14:05:47 GMT mercian said:

Dec 12, 2023 9:30:34 GMT neilj said:

With the level of skill required to transfer messages it's more akin to being able to fill your car up at a petrol station...although thinking about that Sunak struggled to do that aswell 😀

He probably has staff to do routine tasks for him. I wonder if he has a valet dress him, like Charlie-boy does?

The valet might be taking the mick if he keeps choosing those short trousers…






They’re almost like breeches. shocking really

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 12, 2023 14:27:53 GMT thylacine said:

Dec 12, 2023 14:05:47 GMT mercian said:

He probably has staff to do routine tasks for him. I wonder if he has a valet dress him, like Charlie-boy does?

That valet needs to be told it's time for some big boy trousers!

ah, I see I have been pipped to the post once again. (Still, I did post pics, in case any one had trouble imagining it. Or believing it)

[c-a-r-f-r-e-w]

Dec 12, 2023 13:27:44 GMT alec said:

c-a-r-f-r-e-w /crossbat11 - odd reporting indeed on that poll.

While 48% were "somewhat or strongly against face mask rules on public transport", 45% were strongly (16%) or somewhat (29%) in favour, so it's evenly balanced. I'm actually gobsmacked that 20% would agree with closing restaurants and 13% shutting nightclubs.

But it is heartening to see so many still showing concern for themselves and those around them, when we are repeatedly told we've moved on.

One very odd observation however is where this is being reported; The Telegraph, the Express and GB News. A trio of right wing outlets all giving this coverage, while I can't find anything elsewhere. I have no idea what that means, but the headlines are odd too; GB News "Covid: Return of lockdown measures backed by extraordinary number of people ", Express "Fifth of Brits would be in favour of reintroducing Covid restrictions in the future", Telegraph "Fifth of British public would support reintroduction of Covid restrictions".

Something is afoot.
. 

yes it is a little odd, the vociferous opponents of lockdown drawing attention to how many prefer lockdown. (Maybe they’re hoping fishy Rishi will enforce a lockdown in response to rising Covid cases and use that as an excuse to postpone the election? 😱😱😱)

incidentally, one of the pollsters had this to say about why some are more favouring of preventative measures: “Why is this the case? From our focus groups we know that while most people couldn’t wait to get back to normal life there was undoubtedly a smaller group who enjoyed the quieter pace of life that lockdown brought and would like to see it brought back.”



 

[shevii]

Ipsos seem to drip feed their polls but I think this is new for actual voting intention.

@leftiestats

·
1h
🚨 NEW: Labour lead drops; Greens rise to 9%

🟥 LAB 41% (-5)
🟦 CON 24% (-1)
🟧 LD 13% (+1)
🟩 GRN 9% (+3)
🟪 REF 7% (+3)
🟨 SNP 3% (-1)


Via

@ipsosuk

, 1-7 December (+/- vs 8 November)

[lens]

Dec 12, 2023 12:27:07 GMT alec said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67541581

"Could there be a gold rush for buried hydrogen?"

Err...no.

It would be a 'hydrogen rush'.

I'm afraid whenever I hear the words "hydrogen" and "climate change" in the same context, I'm afraid my first thought tends to be "GREENWASHING". A little unfair, maybe, and undoubtably hydrogen does have a place to play in the future, but unfortunately the stories tend to have far more to do with the gas industry trying to keep itself relevant as long into the future as possible.

The BBC story is a pretty old one, and smacks of a business reporter who has just seen a press release, and is just going by what's in it. The science is interesting, but (strangely) it's not as fantastic as that story makes it sounds. For starters, I don't believe most of the discoveries are anything like 100% pure - so forget about just taking it from underground, compression, and hey presto! an immediate source of fuel for a fuel cell car. (They require the hydrogen to be nearly 100% pure.)

If you want a reference, try cleantechnica.com/2023/08/07/no-white-hydrogen-isnt-a-limitless-source-of-clean-fuel/ and the section towards the end points out why the BBC article is..... optimistic? Perhaps worth sending the BBC reporter that link?