MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
Leaving everything else aside the legal argument doesn't look strong. Is he hoping for a court case and lots of "enemies of the people" headlines? And claiming that they could accept a modified bill when their own party was involved in the construction of the last one and they kept their mouths shut then is pathetic.
And sadly another fine opportunity for Starmer to look weak, not to mention clueless about the issue and at odds with his own party who supported the bill- he keeps talking about the Equality Act, apparently not knowing that his own party succesfully introduced an amendment which says nothing in the new law modifies the equality act.
not in Scotland
Apologies, you are correct. I'm getting things mixed up with Ireland's changes.
at odds with his own party who supported the bill
The UK parliamentary party are quite split on this though. As are members.
We've seen what's happened to the Green party on this issue. The Tories have something to split the left on, and they're damn sure going to use it. Any position Starmer takes could mean trouble for his party.
Its my judgement Ernie. Murray who is scotlands only labour MP and shadow scots secretary supports the veto and Starmer normally has the same view on Scots politics. Its usually pretty reliable to assume that Starmer will agree with Murry even if Murrays views are at odds with Sarwar. its almost as if he does not consider MSPs and Holyrood worth considering
also 12 years of experience where labour particularly london labour will by default take a position that anything the SNP proposes must be opposed
it's my judgement Ernie
Fairy nuff. Only based on what he has said I am assuming that Starmer would not back a veto.
Starmer tends to try to take a neutral position on contentious issues - generally criticising the government's handling of the issue but not taking a very clear and unambiguous position concerning where he stands.
Starmer tends to try to take a neutral position on contentious issues – generally criticising the government’s handling of the issue but not taking a very clear and unambiguous position concerning where he stands.
That nay be a strategy which so far is working while ether Tories implode but has another two years to play out so all depends if it works for the next two years. Just let the tories continue imploding and ensuring the focus stays away from Labour as much as possible until the 6 months before election.
Anyway, as I can't see he's had his own thread,it appears former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi owes HMRC £3.5m following an enquiry by the NCA and SFO. Can't link, it's on Accountancy Daily which I access via work.
Sets an interesting precedent for former Chancellors.
Normally a high value/profile case like that gets trumpeted all over HMRC internal comms....
You'd think that a former chancellor and the current chairman of the Tory party (and still a cabinet minister), being done for millions of pounds of tax dodging would be front page news, wouldn't you? Yet, the BBC haven't seen fit to even mention it
https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1614942345635438592?s=20&t=2NQJctDp2OksLaUaK3czLg
Its just yet another example of how debased our politics has become under this lot that all this warrants is a shrug. Rishi's 'governing with integrity' is going well, isn't it?
Zahawi you say... lying about money... never...
https://twitter.com/spittingcat/status/1615247511580512257?s=20&t=reM6cfZr5w5dkp06ey59Xw
Why is just about your objections? Why can’t Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Everyone already had the ability to reply to the consultation, seemed that UK Govt 'organisations' didn't.
Some of their objections have been covered in the amendments and some like the safe spaces arguement are an impossible circle to square. The 3 month waiting period removes much of the risk of malicious action to disrupt single sex services.
Its not the substance of the act that is really in question anyway. Its the undemocratic action of Sunak and Jack. The GRA took 6 years to enact, has cross party support and passed Holyrood with a massive majority. For it to be cancelled on a whim by a Westminster government with no mandate in Scotland is a democratic outrage. They had a less nuclear option of refferal to the supreme court but chose not to take it presumably realising their legal case was weak.
From some snippets i have read it looks like Scottish labour are going to reverse their position from support to opposition to the GRA.
Another point is that those same concerns exist under english law. Nothing in the GRA changes that.
I'm staggered the BBC doesn't appear to be covering the Zahawi tax story (I can't find it if they are). If so , the process of being comprehensively neutered by their political appointees has been completed.
Why is just about your objections? Why can’t Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Everyone already had the ability to reply to the consultation, seemed that UK Govt ‘organisations’ didn’t.
Yeah read in the correct context which I wrote it, it referred to TJ's claim that any objections expressed were only motivated by hatred of the SNP.
Apparently only his objections were legitimate objections. Starmer, the Guardian newspaper, etc, have no genuine concerns, only hatred of the SNP.
Apparently only his objections were legitimate objections. Starmer, the Guardian newspaper, etc, have no genuine concerns, only hatred of the SNP.
Like I said, this issue was a near as has been seen in recent years a true cross-party consensus. Even the tories supported it under Ruth Davidson.
That the EHRC is now saying it has concerns, despite saying in this briefing from April 2022 that it doesn't have these concerns, is a bit strange.
Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.
So, for the second time of asking you, ernie, what exactly are these genuine concerns?
TJ’s claim that any objections expressed were only motivated by hatred of the SNP.
thats not quite what I said. Experience shows that labour automatically oppose the SNP on any issue almost 100% and that Starmer does not want to see Scotland improve its standard of living by left wing socially liberal policies as it shows his centerist approach to be wrong with a litttle bit of "get in your place scots"
Re the concerns - all discussed at length before. ( access to safe spaces / womens only services) The real issue is that the GRA in Scotland has no bearing on these. Those concerns remain the same under english law and under the GRA and they have been addressed in the bill as much as can be. This stuff is one of those positions where someones rights are at risk. The GRA does not alter this at all. These concerns ( whether you believe them to be real or not) Exist under English law on trans rights in exactly the same way
If you read the link I provided on the chair of the EHRC she opposes trans rights and is in favour of gay / trans conversion therapy which is why her appointment caused a lot of concern
''martinhutch
Full Member
I’m staggered the BBC doesn’t appear to be covering the Zahawi tax story (I can’t find it if they are). If so , the process of being comprehensively neutered by their political appointees has been completed.''
not just the bbc - not immediately apparent on the guardian site either?!
thats not quite what I said.
In essence that is exactly what you said. You are claiming that any concerns expressed by Starmer and Guardian editorials is purely motivated by opposition to the SNP/Scottish independence, you don't seem to believe that they could be genuine concerns.
Here are your exact words:
Sunak and Starmer have the same objectives with regards to Scotland. they want the SNP to fail and they do not want a left wing socially liberal exemplar north of the border. The Guardian is also staunchly unionist and opposes the SNP at all times.
In essence that is exactly what you said
Errm - which is it then. Exactly or in essence :-0 Ulike you to use sloppy language
I do not believe he has genuine concerns given that the GRA changes nothing with regards to what happens once you have a certificate and that under scots law you are an adult with regards to medical treatment at 16
So concerns over safe spaces etc are unaffected by the GRA and his opposition to having control over your medical treatment at 16 simpply shows he does not understand scots law
so he may believe he has genuine concerns but in actual fact his concerns are based on a fundamental misunderstanding or he is making this statement for politicalpurposes
Errm – which is it then. Exactly or in essence :-0
Well if we are engaging in the precise art of hair splitting.... both.
The first bit was me using my words to discribe what you said, and the second bit was your actual comment in your own words.
I hope that clears up any confusion 🧐
🙂
The key point is why is he getting involved in this and why does he think he has the right to go against the scottish branch who supported this act? the vast majority of Labour MSPs support it including the leader of the scots branch.
He is also going against scots law where you have the right to make decisions about your healthcare at 16.
not just the bbc – not immediately apparent on the guardian site either?!
Or C4 apparently. I tried to start a Post about this but it never went up on the site. I thought 'My God, the bastards have nobbled STW too!'
not just the bbc – not immediately apparent on the guardian site either?!
I did find it on the Guardian by Googling "Zahawi tax" and it popped up - they seemed to be quoting the Sun as breaking the story
Though to be fair, we are all so busy frothing about the Scottish Gender Act it's easily missed in the news, don't you think?
not just the bbc – not immediately apparent on the guardian site either?!
Guardian reported on it a couple of days back. Given it was the observer who started the story they might be holding some stuff back to the weekend.
The GRA stuff seems tohave ended up split over a number of thread. I have read the tories reasoning for blocking the bill. Its really really thin. some of it is outright lies but it boils down to " how very dare you have different laws" " it must remain very difficult to get a certificate" " but what about the children" NO wonder they did not want to go to court
Surely, the bill could be read and submissions about its application to UK wide law (if real) given BEFORE it was passed? Why now?
And this bit...
the removal of the requirement for an applicant to provide any evidence that they have lived in their acquired gender when submitting an application
...doesn't the bill make it an offence for someone to declare that have lived in their "acquired gender" for the required period when they haven't? That's better than insisting on everyone applying giving evidence (which could be faked anyway). No? A "fake" application is then a criminal offence. Some reassurance for those worried about people who aren't trans applying in bad faith.
we are all so busy frothing about the Scottish Gender Act
Dead Cat
Zahawi case finally appears on BBC, but its not on the front page
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64304132
There is no doubt in my mind this is a political move by the tories as they could have taken a number of other less controversial routes on this. Why have they not done this with other issues that cause similar divergence between Scotland and England?
I am sure the political calculation is that by doing this they think they will bolster their support in Scotland as its the only time I can think of when SNP labour and Lib dems are all on one side and tories on the other. so its useful for the tories to be able to blame labour and libdem as well as the SNP. Its an attempt to put clear blue water between them and the rest of scotlands political parties so as well as fighting for the unionist vote which is moving to labour they hope to pick up the anti equal rights vote
it will also play well in their core constituency in England
we are all so busy frothing about the Scottish Gender Act
I have no real ideological position on the GRA or trans rights in general, as I suspect do most other people, so I'm genuinely confused why such a tiny fringe issue gets the airtime it does. 🤷♂️
The green party made it a condition of going into coalition with the SNP that the GRA went thru. Its a very divisive issue and Sturgeon expended a lot of political capital to get it thru and its been highly modified from its original form to find a balance between conflicting rights
This will effect a couple of hundred people a year. As you say its hardly worth frothing about especially as IMO the GRA has got the balance about right
One of the tories objections is so far fetched its ludicrous From the grauniad:
Where a claimant may deem a colleague to be the most appropriate comparator of the opposite sex, but that colleague then receives a GRC, the 2010 Act would not enable them to be cited as the comparator in the claim. This could prevent the comparator test from accurately identifying what might otherwise have been deemed unlawful.
As the criteria for being issued with a GRC under the 2004 Act presently mean GRCs can only be issued to a small group who have lived in their acquired gender for at least 2 years, the effect of this on equal pay provisions is significantly limited.
However, the bill will allow a new and significantly broader category of people to change their legal sex. As more individuals are eligible to change their legal sex, the adverse effect on the operation of the 2010 Act’s equal pay provisions grows. In particular, an individual’s ability to gain a full GRC after living in their acquired gender for 6 or 9 months would increase the likelihood of equal pay claims involving individuals who had started and completed the gender recognition process only relatively recently or who obtained a GRC while a claim was ongoing.
Many of us would conclude that the chances of this happening – in equal pay cases where no other “comparators” are available – seem very, very remote. And the chances of this producing a genuine equal pay injustice seem non-existent.
In its own document the government admits these issues “may arise infrequently”. But it claims in some instances these issues could be “significant”.
I’m genuinely confused why such a tiny fringe issue gets the airtime it does
It's interesting watching people go down the rabbit hole... I follow Rosie Duffield (Labour MP), and used to follow Graham Linehan and many others that have become overly focused on Trans people... it seems to start with the fears of some women that accepting Trans Women as women somehow reduces what it is to be a woman (the view that trans people are just mocking them or playing games is common) and turns into a focus on rare criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is a Trans Woman, or a man pretending to be a Trans woman. Then it gets very angry and offensive quite fast. There can be a lot of angry offensive behaviour reciprocated as well, by the people painted as sexual deviants and potential criminals simply for being Trans... because, they, er, get angry about how they are portrayed and the attempts to deny them rights in the name of protecting people from the "dangers" of the minority they are part of. Add in the fact that many people know they are Trans in their teens, or even earlier... and that some people want to "protect them" from living the lives they feel they need to live (rather then helping them live it safely and without fear, persecution and poor mental health)... it can all get very frought.
Anyway, all the anger and intensity of opinion is very "clickable"... so lots of attention and "airtime".
Politically it can also be a useful dividing issue for the right to use against people to the "left" of them.
I have no real ideological position on the GRA or trans rights in general, as I suspect do most other people, so I’m genuinely confused why such a tiny fringe issue gets the airtime it does.
That's possibly because you don't feel that it might affect you in any way Daz. I believe that the strongest opposition might be from women's rights organisations.
I suspect that your average "frothing" Daily Mail reader couldn't give a monkeys. Why would they? It is unlikely to affect them - they have much better things to get angry about.
Lil Rishi's class war...
Picking fights with the "enemy within" trouble is the majority of folks are now the enemy within.
That’s possibly because you don’t feel that it might affect you in any way Daz.
Doesn't affect me directly but I'm pretty close to the issue as two of my daughter's best friends have transitioned and one of my mates has a daughter who has transitioned. In my experience the vast majority of people simply respect the decision made by the person and move on with little or no drama, which TBH I find quite amazing. It's really not a subject where ideology has any place IMO.
Womens organisations are split. Trans rights are a situation where different groups rights come into conflict. The GRA and the equalities act between them do their best to find a compromise. The waiting period of 3 or 6 months depending on age under the GRA removes the chance of frivolous or malicious attempts to gain a certificate hugely. I would not be happy with instant self certification for this reason.
One aspect of this tho is the GRA does not change anything in this area of potential conflict because what happens when you get your gender recognition certificate does not change.
The daily mail / express readership do love to froth about this BTW. its where much of the opposition comes from and why Sunak is doing this IMO. there has been a series of articles in those rags decrying the GRA
I suspect that your average “frothing” Daily Mail reader couldn’t give a monkeys.
That's the magic of culture wars, if you convince people that their values/culture etc are under threat they'll get angry and end up voting against their own interests (I know you dont like having the B word mentioned, but its the perfect example)
In terms of culture wars, it's one of many where your age is a good predictor of your response. Guess how that maps onto people likely or unlikely to turn out to vote for the Conservatives... and not just in Scotland... Sunak knows what he's doing. It'll divide Labour in Westminster as well... something the government really need to happen as much as possible between now and the election.
For example -
<h1>Blocking gender law is vital to safeguard women-only spaces, says STEPHEN POLLARD</h1>
google for it and you will find loads of examples. Im not dipping any more into that cesspit of bigotry
The GRA stuff seems tohave ended up split over a number of thread. I have read the tories reasoning for blocking the bill. Its really really thin. some of it is outright lies but it boils down to ” how very dare you have different laws” ” it must remain very difficult to get a certificate” ” but what about the children” NO wonder they did not want to go to court
Good link, @tjagain. I’m not sure it’s thin, however.
The basic argument seems to be that this act affects the equality act because:
a) the Scottish government just won a judicial review saying that a gender recognition certificate changes a person’s sex for the purposes of the equality act.
b) allowing more groups of people to apply for gender recognition certificates will therefore affect how the equality act operates.
It’ll go to court no matter what.
You’d think that a former chancellor and the current chairman of the Tory party (and still a cabinet minister), being done for millions of pounds of tax dodging would be front page news, wouldn’t you? Yet, the BBC haven’t seen fit to even mention it
And not appearing to be getting any fine either.
Wonder if that was related in any way as to why he was so desperate to be Chancellor for a couple of weeks just before Boris imploded?
It doesn't allow more groups of people. it removes barrriers for folk wanting to transition. there is no one extra covered under the GRA than there is for existing legislation
That judicial review also covers folk who have transitioned under existing legislation
the GRA changes nothing in relation to the equalities legislation
two of my daughter’s best friends have transitioned and one of my mates has a daughter who has transitioned.
One of my very best friends grandson is too, I find it really interesting, I see them all the time, might possibly this evening.
A couple of years ago when he was 15 he was wearing a lot of makeup but dressing in a unisex manner. Then last year he went full makeup, jewelry, short skirts, even falsies on occasions. I asked if he was into girls or boys and was told "he's only sixteen FFS, he hasn't got to that stage yet".
A month or two ago he changed his name to a girls name, obviously I need to remember his new name now after years of calling him by another one. I asked if he had done it through deed poll I told of course not, he's doing things slowly, he's only just decided to change it.
Last week I asked whether I should refer to him as "her" and I was told whatever I wanted as he was happy with both. When I said well surely he needs to decide I was told "he's only 17, he doesn't know what he wants yet, there's no rush".
He's a really lovely kid who is much loved by everyone around him, his family and the loads of very good friends that he has. I personally can't see how he is advantaged by existing laws, in less than a year he will be able to take whatever legal decisions he wants. The only problem that I am aware he actually experiences is bullying from other children of his age, certainly not adults. The art college he attends has officially gone on record saying he has their full support.
I am not sure that he is advantaged under current UK legislation but I fully accept that there might be stuff that I am unaware of.
"Just let the old man call you what he wants, it's far too late to change them"
[ I jest... plenty of kids take exactly this loose approach... hard to tell how much that is down to not wanting to make things awkward for other people rather than not really having a preference... of course people who don't want or mind either ended up excluded from the Scottish bill, as a compromise, originally they were to be included... ]
I am not sure that he is advantaged under current UK legislation but I fully accept that there might be stuff that I am unaware of.
You mean disadvantaged? In practical terms, very little. But the law does help frame society. Legal recognition can help someone feel accepted.
The reform allows people without gender dysphora to apply, and also under 18s. That’s definitely more people and different groups of people than before.
If that's aimed at me Kelvin you have no idea how wrong you are. I respect every decision he has made and he has my full support whatever he decides. I get on extremely well with him. He occasionally gives me one of those girlie hugs the girls give each other 🙂
Edit: Oh I see that you have edited to show that it is. Yeah you know my relationship with someone that you don't even know 🙄
No it doesn't. It allows people to transition without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. a subtle but significant point. No one transitions without gender dysphoria
Under 18s are not a separate group. they are younger members of the same group and as above it must be 16 under Scots law. making it 18 would be subject to legal review and would lose IMO as Scots law is quite clear on this
the group of people is " those wanting to transition"
And not appearing to be getting any fine either.
The penalty for tax avoidance is having to pay the tax you avoided (probably rather less after some ‘negotiation’). Its bollocks.
Ernie
You might be interested in this: Murray is now refusing to say if he supports the veto instead choosing an attack line of - "its the SNP and Tories at fault for being argumentative" conveniently ignoring the fact that the MSPs support this with a couple of exceptions. Asked outright if he supports the veto he refused to say either way
Its pretty clear we have a big split in attitudes between the MSPs and the MPs and they are trying out attack lines to see what fits best. Starmer has shut up from what I can see
Ive linked to the full statement above. It looks a really thin case which is why i assume they did not go to court but instead made this order. Labour party in Westminster are now saying the case is thin
Some of it is obvious nonsense. ie the stuff about equal pay and the stuff about having different regimes north and south of the border and also the risks to single sex services and schools
Who was the Tory MP on Channel4 news saying one of her aims was to not have a different legal situation in Scotland and England. 🤦🏻♂️
Labour took the position of not taking a position in the Westminster vote. Unsurprising, but cowardly.
This has made it even clearer that the view from Westminster is " Scotland know your place"
i expect this to produce a further boost for independence despite the GRA not being very popular - because it lays bare how Scotland is treated.
Sorry, Tory MSP… Rachael Hamilton…
Anyway, where’s Sunk? Good cover for lying low all this. Presumably he’ll be popping back up to take credit for any fall in inflation…
Sorry, Tory MSP… Rachael Hamilton
Another fine upstanding Tory....
I asked if he was into girls or boys and was told “he’s only sixteen FFS, he hasn’t got to that stage yet”.
I've asked that question to my oldest (cis) daughter who describes herself as queer. Admittedly she's a little older at 18 but even at 16 she was telling me in some detail that sexuality and gender are not things that they particularly obsess about, and it's all very fluid. They be who they want to be, and they have relationships with people who they're attracted to, irrespective of gender or sexuality. It's really quite radical, and difficult for us old fogies to get our heads around. I'll admit I have some issues with it, but that's a result of my upbringing and ingrained biases, so I try very hard to take a lead from my kids and their peers because they're way ahead on this stuff than people of our generation.
The Labour party is pointless.
It's lib dem or get in the sea... or Tory if that's what you want.
Vote lib dem get tory.
It’s lib dem or get in the sea…
Funniest thing I've seen written on here in ages. 😂
Labour remain the least worst option. The Tories are as incompetent as they are venal, and Lib Dem means Tories. That said, I voted LD tactically in the last election because they generally come 2nd in my ward and even won a few decades ago, but labour do very poorly.
😂
thought it was a parody account at first
https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1615610241361534977
It’s lib dem or get in the sea…
Be careful not to get in the sea, or promote getting in the sea online.
https://twitter.com/davidleighx/status/1615424550019207191
We are really at the 'last spasms' stage of this government, aren't we?
mattyfez Full Member
The Labour party is pointless.It’s lib dem or get in the sea… or Tory if that’s what you want.
Well it's been a while since you have shown your hand mattyfez. It was 5 months ago when you described Labour as "unelectable" :
mattyfez Full Member
Lol, this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk amongst the same people.And those people don’t get why Labour are unelectable. And so continues the circle
Which in light of your latest post is particularly weird as all the polls consistently show Labour's share of the vote at more than 4 times the size of the LibDem vote.
Be careful not to get in the sea, or promote getting in the sea online.
https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey/status/1561268615600562177?s=20&t=s4evRuxZM7gwKQARdUX2ww
https://twitter.com/sascampaigns/status/1595814759168987139?s=20&t=PiTZPliB8X4xOwbf7qgppw
Sorry, Tory MSP… Rachael Hamilton
Another fine upstanding Tory….
My youngest worked in the hotel when he was younger, they'd try anything to under-pay staff.
mattyfez Full Member
Lol, this thread is nothing more than a circle jerk amongst the same people.And those people don’t get why Labour are unelectable. And so continues the circle
If Labour are "unelectable", how do you refer to the Tories?
https://twitter.com/hmtreasury/status/1615610241361534977?s=20&t=9pAKJUqnFhFFIlN4mYlzww
(as above)
"Listen up you ****s - I'm going to talk to you like economic babies."
Markets don't 'punish us' - the BoE controls the markets you refer too (Bonds/Interest rates) you imbecile. The UK currency floats that is what its designed to do. (Pension funds running things like Lehman is okay apparently.)
Some of the UK’s biggest asset managers have rejected claims by the Bank of England that “poorly managed” leverage was the root cause of September’s gilt market crisis. F.T Dec 7 2022
This whole arms length control is a myth - I mean they let the BoE go in the opposite direction of what is good for the economy with interest rate cuts at the expense of livelihoods.
And now they claim to be able to half inflation? (When it was naturally going to regress.)
People project their own politics on to the markets and that is exactly what Hunt with a big C is doing here along with every other weak at the knees Liberal economist.
These neoliberal morons are going to make sure a large chunk of the UK stays poor forever with their lies about wages driving inflation. Any mention of balance the books or control the UK finances (6 surpluses in the last 40 years tells you how useful that target is) is code for keeping you poor at the expense of the big asset class.
Don't let them get away with this drivel.
are going to make sure a large chunk of the UK stays poor forever with their lies about wages driving inflation
That's the plan. And it's obvious. Using a period of high inflation to make a large chunk of the workforce significantly poorer long term. On top of all the other decisions they've made over the last decade that make most people in the UK poorer.
On top of all the other decisions they’ve made that make most people in the UK poorer over the last decade.
You see this on private debt balance sheets.
Food inflation @ 16.8% in December. Those higher prices won't be dropping. We know who that hits hardest, and they are very few of them that won't be asked to just suck that up.
EDIT: yes, a lot of that "sucking up" will mean taking on debt.
Food inflation @ 16.8% in December. Those higher prices won’t be dropping. We know who that hits hardest, and they are very few of them that won’t be asked to just suck that up.
it's also worth rembering that everyone's 'personal' inflation is different. And that inflation has already elevated prices so when they say half inflation - it's only slowing current prices. Previous inflation is now baked in.
It's not that clear a metric say if you're a low income family actual inflation will be sky high, especially if you've not had a wage rise in years.
I do wonder where this will all end.
Looks like the Tories might scrape through on fundamentals to me.
Does Rishi Sunak not realise that the more he bangs on about Labour not supporting minimum service levels during strikes, the more it highlights the fact that his government can't even deliver minimum service levels when there isn't a strike?
the more it highlights the fact that his government can’t even deliver minimum service levels when there isn’t a strike?
I expect thats part of why they left the definition up to the whims of the minister on the day.
Could be fun though as soon as it passed.
Call a strike just to see what the alleged minimum service level is and how it compares to normal before cancelling it.
And this. Who would have ever thought that Sunak would be thicker than Truss? Gone by the summer.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1615686283669475331?s=20&t=MJxOE5TTPgZWS2c2R-PJDQ
This whole arms length control is a myth – I mean they let the BoE go in the opposite direction of what is good for the economy with interest rate RISES at the expense of livelihoods.
Edit from my rant above should be INTEREST RATE RISES
And this. Who would have ever thought that Sunak would be thicker than Truss? Gone by the summer.
Oh yeah I've always thought so - Just Sunak looked like one of these 'Adults' that people keep harping on about.
There's nothing competent about him. In fact he lacks the total confidence any leader ought to have - and I don't think he will stick around. He's rubbish but the centre establishement got behind him for some unknown secret skill-set attached to offering furlough. PMSL.
Did this do the rounds on here:
https://twitter.com/dinosofos/status/1614190496775012352?s=20&t=WfBNdE-S5g9RGIM--JIGgw
This shows his media training falling apart, and he simply doesn't look like a PM.
Oh yeah I’ve always thought so – Just Sunak looked like one of these ‘Adults’ that people keep harping on about.
It's all relative, compared to the last 2 incumbents he's a grown up, but they were spectacularly awful
Did this do the rounds on here
Yeah, I posted it in this thread. Some proper "just answer the question" interview techniques. More of that please.
the centre establishement got behind him
Strange way to spell "Conservative MPs", but hey. No one else has made him PM. Lost a leadership contest to Liz Truss when put to party members. Hasn't run as leader at any election involving the public. Had to put Braverman back in charge of the Home Office to stop the most right wing of his MPs blocking his "loser wins it all" rise to the top job.
Strange way to spell “Conservative MPs”, but hey. No one else has made him PM
Well to support him or get behind him - I don't mean vote for him. The commentary was out there at the time.
It’s all relative, compared to the last 2 incumbents he’s a grown up, but they were spectacularly awful
Well not to split hairs but to mean 'grown-up' can still allow for someone who's totally out of his depth, Brexiteer, economically illiterate "The government doesn't have money of its own", Neoliberal policy architect - all the things you might associate with a bog-standard Tory despite grown-up credentials. But still devastatingly bad.
It's not a term I would use really.
Grown up? At 5'7'' he's got some way to go but he's getting there, you can tell by his trousers.
