Forum menu
Today's culture war announcement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2xly8vxreo
I'm lost if a toilet has a shitter and a sink and a door why would anyone mind what signs on the door.
Did you bother reading the article you posted?
The change to building regulations will also allow contained, universal toilets in addition to single-sex toilets where space allows, or instead of single-sex toilets where there is not enough space.
A universal toilet is defined by the government as a self-contained room with a toilet and sink for individual use.
I remember my Mum being shocked when I told her about a cafe I used to go to that had unisex toilets. 'Make sure you clean the seat properly or you could get an infection!' She never elaborated on how exactly or what kind of infection.
I suspect this is firmly aimed at my Mum's generation.
I suspect this is firmly aimed at my Mum’s generation.
It's firmly aimed at them and anti wokists, it's another piece of legislation they announce which will never ever happen, just done to appeal to morons. Stay scared everyone the light wing looney's will be making you all transgender soon
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1786833178608468322
Opinium which is the pollster that has been consistently the most generous to the Tories is still giving Labour a 16% lead.
40% isn't that brilliant for Labour - it is exactly what Labour received in the 2017 general election, which they didn't win. It would appear that Labour's good fortunes are heavily dependent on Reform UK's performance.
Which presumably is why the Tories are focusing so heavily on appealing to bigots. Although as mentioned earlier I have no idea why they think they might win that particular battle - if I was a homophobic racist bigot I would be backing Nigel Farage - he is even the correct colour.
Yep. I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But most people would agree that if Reform UK did not stand any candidates at the next general election that would give a huge boost to the Tories, it certainly did in 2019.
And if Labour only managed 40% in a general election it could well rob them of the ability to form a majority government.
That toilet thing is amazing, we're banning gender neutral/unisex toilets but you can have a universal toilet, which is definitely not in any way a gender neutral or unisex toilet. And we're going to justify it by saying it helps the disabled and elderly who are apparent;y unfairly affected by converting existing toilets into gender neutral, but it only applies to new developments so that's completely irrelevant to the new law
Gender neutral toilets are of course evil and cause the spread of wokeness, except on trains and planes of course where they're perfectly natural and god fearing. Turns out that 81% of people are in favour of separate male and female toilets, but 82% of the same sample of people are also in favour of universal toilets.
Because the most important issue in Britain is being able to bully trans people for going to the "wrong" toilet and we need to ensure we can keep doing that by reducing the spread of toilets that they can't be wrong in.
This is a couple of years old but I have only just had my attention drawn to it.
Not really much of a surprise to me, after all the lower down the social scale the more likely you are to have a Muslim friend I would have thought. In the same way as you more likely to have a black friend. But it might surprise a little those who have preconceived assumptions about "gammons".
I think unisex toilets are a good thing... I have no evidence to back this up other than my own experence... but my experience, in nightclubs for example, people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women.
Yep. I don’t think anyone has claimed otherwise.
But most people would agree that if Reform UK did not stand any candidates at the next general election that would give a huge boost to the Tories, it certainly did in 2019.
And if Labour only managed 40% in a general election it could well rob them of the ability to form a majority government.
yougovs polling back in December showed that only 1/3rd of reform votes were winnable by the Tories, reform were polling at about 10% at the time so even if you assume all of the extra now voting reform that would add about 8% on to the Tories, which probably wouldnt be enough to stop Labour getting a decent majority if the current polls number hold until a GE
Aye, but if Sunak wins back the Reform vote, how much will he lose to Lab/LDs?
Sweet FA, anyone still voting for the tories now isn't switching to Lab/LD.
What's the largest majority in any GE in history?
Is Cameron trying to sneak back into political leadership?
I'm assuming we can file the whole toilet thing as yet another announcement that they will never get around to implementing?
I mean, many's the day I've woken up and dreaded the day to come knowing I might have to use a unisex toilet. Nightmare. It's a definite vote winner for me.
I think they’re out of parliamentary time for anything that’s not already in progress, because we’re so close to the election.
Not sure if they can do this by secondary legislation though.
I think unisex toilets are a good thing… I have no evidence to back this up other than my own experence… but my experience, in nightclubs for example, people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women.
But do they still piss on the seats?
yougovs polling back in December showed that only 1/3rd of reform votes were winnable by the Tories
And that Labour would get about 2% of the Reform UK votes if Reform UK didn't stand. There is little doubt that Reform UK is damaging to the Tories. Especially in the Tory marginals where thanks to FPTP every 1% makes a huge difference.
I don't think polls which give Labour a 20-25% are realistic, I wish they were. The reality is that on election day it will be much closer, probably about half of that.
Which is what occurred in the London mayoral election - a week before the election opinion polls were putting khan's lead at about 22%, on election day he had an 11% lead.
It's not that the polls were wrong, they were correct at the time they were taken, it's just that undecided Tory voters decided how they would vote just before the election. Khan's lead in a survation poll the day before, Wednesday, was put at 10%
The latest opinium poll which gives Labour a 16% lead factors in how currently uncommitted 2019 Tory voters are likely to vote when the general election is finally called.
people, especially hetro blokes, tend to behave a bit better if they are sharing a bank of sinks and taps with women
But do they still piss on the seats?
As someone that cleaned pub toilets: absolutely guaranteed, they're awful. I can't see why men would want to share with them.
Sir John Curtice's take on the Tory hopes of a hung parliament. He seems to think it's unlikely. Reform, Scotland and tactical voting will staft them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68964302
Just a little part of the article:
At the same time, some voters seemingly voted for whichever party was best placed to defeat the Conservatives locally. Labour's support increased most (at the expense of the Liberal Democrats) in wards where they started off second to the Conservatives, while the Liberal Democrats advanced most (and Labour did less well) in wards where were the principal challengers locally.
Indeed, it is these two patterns that help explain why the Conservative Party lost nearly one in two of the council seats it was trying to defend. Conservative MPs would be unwise to assume that the same fate could not also befall them.
The bigger the Labour lead the less likely people are to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.
People vote tactically in marginal seats.
With all the current opinion polls, and by-election results, showing a huge Labour lead people will not feel that it is necessary to vote tactically, and instead are likely to vote for their preferred choice.
Which is a shame really because the smaller the Conservative Parliamentary Party the better imo. It makes them less relevant, gives them less voices in the media , and reduces their chances of winning the following general election.
ernielynch
Full Member
The bigger the Labour lead the less likely people are to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.
Well, it depends I suppose and we wont get a better idea till after the GE.
Personally, I think that those that did vote tactically will see the locals as vindication for doing so and will do so again in the GE.
We shall see though.
The problem for the Tories now is that a lot of people living in constituencies who were not engaged with politics because they believed they had no chance of unseating the Conservative MP are now alive to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, with some tactical voting, they could get rid of MPs with a 15,000 majority in 2019. They are energised and that isn't going away.
Many in the Tories' own base are disillusioned and were fine when their candidate was sailing home, but apathetic and more likely to stay home when there's a chance of them losing.
In a lot of constituencies, the Conservatives do not have the structure in place or the manpower for a sustained period of defending previously rock solid seats. And most importantly, they do not have the funding to defend so many vulnerable constituencies.
True but unfortunately due the recent development of anti-politics, mistrust of politicians, and false claims of the LibDems - who in an attempt to make themselves more relevant have created a myth suggesting that coalition governments are more healthy, many voters are now not keen to see one party able to govern easily.
With many opinions polls predicting a huge Labour majority (Kimbers prediction above gives Labour 479 seats to the Tories 84) some people might well vote tactically to stop Labour from having this huge predicted, and alledgedly unhealthy, majority.
@ martinhutch
Morale amongst the foot soldiers must be a factor too during campaigning. A "tory insider" commented that in the West Midlands campaign, many activists just showed up for photoes and then buggered off.
This is opposed to Labour, Libdems, greens etc** that must be hyped as hell at the moment. Only a couple of years back they and we, were all resigned to another Tory government.
How times change.
**Unfortunately, this probably applies to Reform activists too.
Which is what occurred in the London mayoral election – a week before the election opinion polls were putting khan’s lead at about 22%, on election day he had an 11% lead.
How much of that is down to people saying they'd vote for him (or not vote for Hall) but then not voting at all?
11% is the second largest majority in London Mayoral history - I'm not sure how much of the pre-count blustering from the Tories about how it was super close and she may just have done this was bravado, expectation management, PR or what but it's kind of sounding the same now. They're almost daring people to vote how they want cos the worst that'll happen is a hung Parliament.
Or is it still just complete delusion from the Tory benches - the same delusion that is convincing them they're doing a great job?!
Hopefully illusory elephant in the room time...
Do we now think we are safe from Tice pulling his candidates in Tory marginals?
He's about as trustworthy as a rattlesnake.
I think it unlikely, but I've been aghast at lots of things in UK politics in the last 8 years that have defied common sense.
Think of how much coverage Farage got/gets and he’s not even an MP.
Leaders of political parties might get media coverage but how many people do you see on the BBC QT panel who are there in their capacity as former MPs? How many former MPs ask questions in Parliament?
The pre-London mayoral count blustering from the Tories was baffling - there was no way that they could have known how it was going before the counting had started and opinions polls are not that dramatically wrong - their margin of error isn't in double figures!
I can only think that Susan Hall was indeed delusional, but I don't understand why her team and other Tory politicians seemed to back her up - you can't get the election result that want simply by wishing for it.
A persistant refusal to accept reality has become increasingly imbedded in Tory policy over the last decade.
Sunak in his desperation is promising further tax cuts, which everyone knows can’t be funded by anything other than taking a hatchet to already decimated public service budgets.
Not that it will make any difference to his popularity, but further tax cuts for working people is one of the few things the tories are right on. People are still suffering from the inflation spike and the resultant higher borrowing costs so extra money in their pocket is exactly what they need right now, and it will also provide a much needed economic boost. I see though you're towing the 'we don't have any money' line which Rachel Reeves is so keen on so I guess there's little hope of the labour party doing much to help people*.
*Assuming of course that they're being honest, which I think we all know is unlikely.
Sunak and his Govt added £120bn to the National Debt just in the last 12 months, ignore anything he says about "funding".
Labour unfortunately have got to follow the 'line' while in Opposition, otherwise the Tory-Press will hound them (even though the Tories are adding to the National Debt at +£300m PER DAY, which they obviously never mention).
They really are desperate. Their last attempt at voter suppression seems to have failed, so let's go for a new one
Labour unfortunately have got to follow the ‘line’ while in Opposition
Labour might have to but I think here we can be honest and bin any talk about not being able to 'afford' or 'fund' tax cuts. The question is not whether we can fund them but whether they're the best way to support working people and/or boost the economy.
is it me or does that photo up there look like a still from a HSE video, 'how to spot inappropriate behavior in the workplace.
Banning postal votes would be suicidal lunacy for the Tories. In the locals we were about equal with the Tories on postal but won significantly in every box. Same in almost all wards - postal voters are usually older therefore significantly more likely to vote conservative.
Clarke- Smith is basically making a very ill informed dig re mayoral elections and allusion to postal voters fraud. He knows the Tory party will not stop postal voting and so is safe I making Trump style unfounded statements
Another thread where we all pretend that taxing and spending are arbitrary? Managing the balance between money created, spent, taxed, lent, borrowed... this is all key. Everyone know that the links between these and the considerations that need to be made are neither direct or simple... but deciding to change any of them... effects all the others, and impacts on all our lives. The over simplification of tax breaks being funded by spending cuts (or visa versa) is worth challenging, but replacing that with glib claims that they do not affect each other is no better. Looking at the "affordability" of tax cuts (especially those which the better off will benefit from) is entirely valid (and essential)... that does not means that taxes directly and solely fund spending.
Another thread where we all pretend that taxing and spending are arbitrary?
Nope. Just another attempt to debunk the myth that the govt doesn't have any money. Clearly the labour party centrists have swallowed it (apart from spending money on weapons of course) and are going to allow it to prevent them from doing anything useful. Or more likely they're using it as an excuse for not doing anything useful or changing anything, which is exactly what the corporate establishment and billionaire power brokers want.
So should labour support tory calls for lower taxes for working people or carry on pretending we can't afford them?
So should labour support tory calls for lower taxes for working people or carry on pretending we can’t afford them?
I'd prioritise public services over tax breaks for well off "working people" every time. Because the working class relying on those services and can't afford the private provisions, like private health care and eduction, that those well off "working people" will spend their tax breaks on.
^^ I obviously have a vested interest these days but even without it, I'd agree. 👍
like private health care and eduction, that those well off “working people” will spend their tax breaks on.
You seriously think 'well off' (what does that mean BTW?) working class people spend money on private health care and education??? You might want to reconnect with the real world.
He didn't say " working class people" he said " working people"
He didn’t say ” working class people” he said ” working people”
Ok whatever. I know loads of 'well off' working people and I can assure you that none of them can afford private health care or education. Most of them are trying to figure out how to cover the increase in their mortgages and how they're going to pay for their kids university living expenses (no the loans don't cover it) or childcare costs (that goes for me too before anyone asks).
I’d prioritise public services over tax breaks for well off “working people” every time.
Still interested in what 'well off' means. The cuts in NI benefited anyone earning between 12.5k and 50k per year. Is that what you mean? Even at the upper end no one I know earning 50k is sending their kids to private school or paying for private health care.
Yes, I think that earning 50k a year is "well off"... and if the Tories win and "reward" many of us with tax breaks, then the further deterioration of the NHS means you'd better bloody be choosing private health insurance... the number of family and friends (with lower than £50k income) that have had to resort to going private in the last few years is shocking... including life saving cancer treatment in two cases. If I had the means, I'd have health cover... despite hating the idea that anyone should need it at all. A tax break for me (and those earning much more than me) isn't going to fix the NHS. Choosing tax breaks over public services is bonkers right now. Pretending you can easily have both doesn't help with the immediate political choices ahead for the UK.
As toilets are all the the rage in the Tory party, this unrelated story amused me a little.
Women-only museum becomes a toilet to keep men out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1wpegrnrxo
The UK proposals are all about sinks, aren't they? Not toilets. Your new facility can have as many shared use toilets as you want, with no unisex toilets at all... as long as people don't have to share sinks.
Yes, I think that earning 50k a year is “well off”
Me too but it's nowhere near enough to be paying for private healthcare (aside from emergency one-off elective procedures) and private education. Even the people on 100k+ who I know can't afford those.
Choosing tax breaks over public services is bonkers right now. Pretending you can easily have both doesn’t help with the immediate political choices ahead for the UK.
It's not an either/or though. Funny how we can have tax cuts and spend 10s of billions on arms but not tax cuts and a functioning NHS. And a couple of percent on national insurance or income tax isn't going to fix the NHS, the only thing that will do that is political will. All you're doing is falling into the tories trap of framing everything around whether we can afford it or not.
Here's an idea, how about we give everyone below the top tax rate a meaningful tax cut (or raise the thresholds to where they should be) and hike taxes for everyone on 100k+. I don't hear any centrist types calling for more tax for the rich, which is a bit odd as according to the 'we have no money' narrative we can't afford not to be taxing them more.
I agree it's political will how public money is spent but the message needs to be understood that it is not the government "finding the money" it's the government prioritising how it spends "our money".
We need to make people think of it in those terms to try and get them engaged in politics as a whole.
The next plan for Tory revival... 😉
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/sunak-pins-hopes-on-new-pandemic-20240503247500
I just subscribed to private healthcare through work, it soaked up about the same as one of the tax cuts. I did it because my daughter's not well and the NHS a) wasn't doing well for us and b) someone else needs it more than we do.
Clearly the labour party centrists have swallowed it (apart from spending money on weapons of course) and are going to allow it to prevent them from doing anything useful.
Dazh - did you pay NO ATTENTION to my earlier post at all?
Ok whatever. I know loads of ‘well off’ working people and I can assure you that none of them can afford private health care or education.
You obviously don't know loads of "well off working people" or your definition of well off is, 'well off'.
We put our kids through private education and have also paid for private health - we're still "working".
Anyway my prospective local MP is still tweeting how the locals were a great night for the Tory party
https://twitter.com/Johnny__Luk/status/1787471311289163853
you'd think from his tweet they'd done well
these are the results he's talking about
Im not sure whether its some elaborate tactic to make me give him a pity vote at the GE?
You obviously don’t know loads of “well off working people” or your definition of well off is, ‘well off’.
So you don't agree with Kelvin that 50k is 'well off'?
Anyway my point is that the tax cuts that have happened and are being proposed by the tories are not just cuts for the rich, although I have no doubt the tories would love to cut taxes for the very well off if they could get away with it. What I'm more interested in though is why supposed progressives like Binners and Kelvin (and other labour supporters) aren't supportive of tax cuts which would help a huge number of working people, especially when the money 'spent' on them won't do anything to improve public services if the political will to improve those services doesn't exist. Seems to me that's supporting the age old tory narrative of labour spending other peoples money.
And you seem to be "supporting" the "age old tory narrative" that people's lives will be made better by tax cuts.
In the next few years, the focus needs to be on improving the services that they and others either need or will need, and by running the country in a way that doesn't lead to a deeper and deeper gap between incomes and the cost of living.
And you seem to be “supporting” the “age old tory narrative” that people’s lives will be made better by tax cuts.
No the tory tax cut mantra is that people are better at spending their own money than the govt is. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the specific and desperately needed support people need right now to cope with the cost of living (and higher interest rates due to BoE incompetence) and tax cuts are the best way of achieving that. There's no reason a labour govt should be against lower taxes for working people. They should be addressing the inequality in tax between working people and the very rich.
and by running the country in a way that doesn’t lead to a deeper and deeper gap between incomes and the cost of living.
How does keeping taxes high reduce the gap between wages and the cost of living? Tax cuts are the most direct and impactful thing a govt can do to put money into the pockets of working people. As long as those tax cuts don't fuel inflation (they won't in this case) then there's very little downside.
So you don’t agree with Kelvin that 50k is ‘well off’?
I don't GAS what he said, I was replying to your post - but as usually you didn't respond.
And no, £50k isn't "well off" - in fact it's barely twice the Minimum/Living Wage.
And no, £50k isn’t “well off” – in fact it’s barely twice the Minimum/Living Wage.
Which supports my point that the tax cuts proposed by the tories are not a giveaway to the better off as Kelvin is arguing. I'd be the last person to support a tax cut for those who don't need one but that's not the case here. Anyway, given Reeves and Starmer are terrified of anything that might differentiate them from the tories I have no doubt that they will keep any tax cuts brought in by them so it's probably a moot point.
And I reckon 50k is well off BTW. It's not a huge amount by any means but I know many professionally qualified people who will never earn that much. It nicely illustrates the difference though between the expectations of the wealthy and the non-wealthy.
And I reckon 50k is well off BTW.
depends on context, it wont get you far if youre mortgage has been Trussed or youre paying off a lot of debt, likewise if you are the single earner of a family then its a very different proposition from being a single bloke with no commitments!
A reminder that most full-time workers in the UK earn less than £35k a year.
If you're on £50k, you're in the top 5% of all earners if you include full and part time workers. You are well off. If you think you're not, have a think about the other 95% of workers... and how failing services are effecting them even more than they do you. This country needs renewal, not right wing low taxation smaller government nonsense. Tax cuts need to wait. And when/if they do come, should be targeted at the bottom half of society first... and, to be clear, if you're on £50k a year... that's not you.
Anyway my prospective local MP is still tweeting how the locals were a great night for the Tory party
One of the Independents standing on an anti-LTN / anti-15 minute neighbourhoods platform (this was in London) did something similar, tweeting that the anti-LTN manifesto had increased its share of the vote by 50% from previously, an indication of how unpopular they were, blah blah.
The candidate had come dead last with about 2000 votes overall.
I’d prioritise public services over tax breaks for well off “working people” every time. Because the working class relying on those services and can’t afford the private provisions, like private health care and eduction, that those well off “working people” will spend their tax breaks on.
Private health care provision isn't expensive through a business. The small company I work for provides it for all staff if we want it and it costs us a small benefit in kind payment. It costs them a few hundred per person which they consider a small price to pay to minimise disruption and get us back to work quicker.
Private health care provision isn’t expensive through a business. The small company I work for provides it for all staff if we want it and it costs us a small benefit in kind payment. It costs them a few hundred per person which they consider a small price to pay to minimise disruption and get us back to work quicker.
Which is very true, but is not tne same as people being able to afford private treatment for themselves and their family themselves. I'm guessing it's not available to Tesco shelf stackers either.
Point of order: there is nothing to say you can't have targeted tax cuts at the lower income levels and public spending at the same time.
The Tories are obsessed with growth via tax cuts - yeah it doesn't work. But tax cuts for lower percentile earners would be a logical direction as lower earners spend a larger share of income on things that count rather than yachts (resource heavy) etc.
People need to grapple with the idea is that public services are miles behind and they need a huge swing in the other direction.
Labour will have had several years to wait and draw up a plan so let's not be looking for stalling excuses - no one really wants more flat-lining economic data.
But tax cuts for lower percentile earners would be a logical direction as lower earners spend a larger share of income on things that count rather than yachts (resource heavy) etc.
Absolutely. And you should also look at income for those that wouldn’t benefit from tax cuts. The current “Tory narrative” is tax cuts for those who think they’re “middle income” but are in fact higher earners, paired with attacks on those in receipt of need based benefits.
At least even the Conservatives have recognised that a half decent minimum wage level is needed. Still so far to go to help those on low or no income though. Plenty that can and should be done before aiming any tax cuts at anyone in the top half of earners.
Just looked in to see if there was anything new, interesting or relevant in recent posts.
There isn't so...back to campaigning, fundraising, data collection and all the other stuff required to make a Labour government a reality.
My MP is jenrick; Reform have confirmed their PPC in the constituency so...what will honest bob, poster boy for the right wing, do? Move towards the centre, lose right wing votes to Reform; move even further to the right, lose votes of 'moderate conservatives' (pinching Andy Street's description) to any of Lab/LDs/Greens//Independents.
The concern is that a fracturing of centrist support will allow jenrick to retain his seat.
@crazy-legs Apart from some odd results in Oxford, I don’t know of anyone who stood on an overt anti-LTN/anti-active travel platform and did well as a result.
@crazy-legs Apart from some odd results in Oxford, I don’t know of anyone who stood on an overt anti-LTN/anti-active travel platform and did well as a result.
Correct - someone added up all the votes for all the London candidates (including Susan Hall) who had "scrap ULEZ / remove LTNs" and so on in their manifesto and worked out that their combined total was about 100,000 votes less that Sadiq Khan received on his own.
It's consistently been shown at local elections that standing on an anti-ULEZ / anti-LTN platform is not a vote winner, in fact it's very much the opposite.
Which makes Sunak's "Plan for Drivers" even more daft. It's like he's literally throwing a net out at random for more votes, more popularity. Nope, that catch is dud, throw it back, we'll cast again. Come on, there must be some remaining gammon we can appeal to, where are they all?
Tories: constantly on the wrong side of the argument.
@crazy-legs Problem is that the opposition parties are also quite capable of being disappointing on active travel, when apparently every councillor’s surgery is full of people complaining about poor driving/traffic volumes…
Can I please ask the question again?
What do we think the chances are now that Tice will revert to type and stand down Reform candidates in Tory marginals before the GE?
Presumably in return for something vile in the Tory manifesto.
Tice will not stand candidates down - anywhere.
He won't stand them down. He knows that in the post election blood letting the remaining tories will be reform in all but name. He has very little to do to help that happen. Standing candidates down would be stupid
frankconway
Full Member
Tice will not stand candidates down – anywhere.
I do agree but I'm slightly concerned that Reforms London mayoral candidate said on a panel interview that he would have considered standing down if Halls team had held discussions with him after he initially contacted them.
That does concern me a little as Tice must have authorised him to to say that.
I'm hoping that was a aberration though.