|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:What gets me about this is they probably knew their forecasts were unrealistically optimistic, but in the interests of ~market confidence~ they gotta pretend everything is coming up roses in the hope it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy As I recall the reasoning on this gets a lot clearer if you plot back further - they were extending the trend that had been seen back to the 70's  It's just we never got back to that observed level
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 12:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
Overminty posted:Keith 'Itanium' Starmer
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
By 2025, Labour won't even be making Corbs86 policies. Nothing but Starmtanium.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:13
|
|
|
loving lol. It would be poetic if he catches it a 2nd time. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
josh04 posted:By 2025, Labour won't even be making Corbs86 policies. Nothing but Starmtanium. Policies coded entirely in 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
This is a great thread https://twitter.com/garius/status/1414926090494169103?s=21
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:loving lol. between having it and surviving and then getting a vaccine i'd hope he survives because if not we're all hosed
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:*5 seconds later* we regret to inform you he also abused the dog Whats dog age of consent in dog years
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
Its been worth it, we can sell sheep to the US again our sheep selling market is worth an annual £438m. Thats a lot of money! Its... hold on... 0.077% of our export market. Oh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:loving lol. Depressingly this pandemic seems to be doing the classic 'no one who deserves it will die, thousands of people who don't will' thing Christ it would have been funny if it killed bojo dead back when he had it last year, would really have brought some much needed levity to an all-round miserable situation
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html "Trans women should be excluded from some “women-only spaces”, Keir Starmer says, as the controversy threatens to open a bitter row in the party. The Labour leader’s spokesman said he remained wedded to the policy on which the party fought the last general election – and that there was “no reason to expect it is going to change”. This meant backing “the implementation of the Equality Act, including the single-sex exemption which allows the provision of women-only spaces”." Well, gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
I... do not recall that interpretation of the equality act being put forward in 2019...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
My controversial take: someone needs to stop Keir Starmer from being the leader of the Labour Party
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Stormgale posted:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html He said that after meeting with the LGBT+ group as well, presumably after they had, at great length, explained that as trans women and cis women are both women, therefore both trans and Cis women are allowed in women only spaces. Spaces that trans men would be excluded from. It’s really not that hard, although maybe after the 8th nip from the flask of the day it may be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Wait what's this about hard nips
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
Convex posted:My controversial take: someone needs to stop Keir Starmer from being the leader of the Labour Party That someone is Keir Starmer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
I predict this is going to cause a wave of resignations among folk who probably should have already quit but it's not going to be enough to change anything other than accelerating the inevitable further consolidation of power by the right and we will get a handful of socialist labour mp's tutting and moaning about it but if they haven't done owt other than tut and moan about all the other poo poo what are they actually good for? The cackhandedness of the actual implementation never ceases to amaze but anyone not seeing this coming after the continued protection and coddling of duffield et al wasn't seeing the woods for the trees labour have been dead for near 2 years and the stench is getting real bad
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:*5 seconds later* we regret to inform you he also abused the dog
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
I hate to defend Starmer but that Independent headline is extremely misrepresentative. https://twitter.com/ryanjohnbutcher/status/1440661102807773192
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:11
|
|
|
I was thinking  how on earth do 'they' know whether someone is trans or not unless, I dunno, they issue transpersons with armbands, with maybe some sort of pink square or blue circle or green star on them?Then this popped up on my FB feed:  Who is going to define a woman? There was that nonsense a couple of months ago about defining a woman as being under 5ft5" tall. That knocks me and my boss out for a start. Ed: Seeing the comments under the image on FB - this has been described as being both pro and anti-terf. Interesting the different ways of seeing it. I was thinking it is anti-terf as in who has the right to define a woman. Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Sep 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:20
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I hate to defend Starmer but that Independent headline is extremely misrepresentative. I find it difficult to interpret it very charitably: quote:Amid the controversy over the abuse she has received, Sir Keir’s spokesman reiterated that “debate should always be held in an atmosphere of respect for all points of view”. At the very least it suggests that he thinks people should be excluded unless they have jumped through whatever stupid loving hoops they plan to write up for "official" recognition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:I was thinking I think the point is that it isn't someone who you'd describe as "him".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
Oh good, just in time for me to be using the ladies again and instead of the disableds. In my experience it’s fat wanker gammons who tell you you don’t look like a woman and should be using the men’s. Although I will say this though, if the grumbling starts and he’s with a woman she will tell him to shut the gently caress up every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:Who is going to define a woman? This was the highlight of the trans MMA nonsense last week https://twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1438094448643219464?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
Jedit posted:I think the point is that it isn't someone who you'd describe as "him". I think I recognise it as one of the mattress TERF’s work, goodie something. She was the one who exposed it as a scam and got Glinner split off from a group of them iirc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:At the very least it suggests that he thinks people should be excluded unless they have jumped through whatever stupid loving hoops they plan to write up for "official" recognition. whether or not there is an "implication" is exactly the dustup from 2019 when that item in the 2019 manifesto was published which was, as a reminder, the move to insert this under 'Women': quote:Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision. whilst under LGBT+ Equality quote:Labour is committed to reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to introduce self-declaration for transgender people... recall Dawn Butler's much-publicized comment https://twitter.com/DawnButlerBrent/status/1197804838106611712 it seems obvious to me that the language was always clearly intended to be ambiguous and that the party has deliberately let it remain ambiguous since then - even Butler's comment left open the escape hatch "welllllll <x> isn't discrimination under the Equality Act". Regardless, it's true that the formulation hasn't changed since it was a Corbyn-launched manifesto, and Starmer hardly seems to be in a position of strength to revise that ronya fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Sep 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:37
|
|
|
 quote:The designer of the familiar British Rail logo has warned against government plans to revamp the symbol and dismissed an attempt to give it a green makeover as a “load of old bollocks”.  This man is despondent. Look at him. What joy is there left in life?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
there's always *checks government approved joy pamphlet* ...racism?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I find it difficult to interpret it very charitably: Starmer is refusing to take a position because he doesn’t want to piss off the TERF faction, but still that is a very unrepresentative headline and framing
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 14:59
|
|
|
Noxville posted:Starmer is refusing to take a position because he doesn’t want to piss off the TERF faction, but still that is a very unrepresentative headline and framing https://twitter.com/sistersinead/status/1440660039509839880 Pretty much my opinion on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
They're running with this whole "Leave the car at home! The train is really green!" poo poo, but like, if you already have a car, odds are, getting to where you're going in the car is going to be easier and cheaper - and it's essentially guaranteed to be *much* cheaper if you're travelling with more than one person. If they really want to encourage people to use trains they need to get the cost of a ticket way loving down, AND expand the network, because until you can reliably, cheaply get much more places than you can now without having a car... most people in most places still need a car to some extent or other, which is a consequence of how the transport network of the country (and of particular towns and cities) has been designed. But no, the green logo will work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:They're running with this whole "Leave the car at home! The train is really green!" poo poo, but like, if you already have a car, odds are, getting to where you're going in the car is going to be easier and cheaper - and it's essentially guaranteed to be *much* cheaper if you're travelling with more than one person. Absolutely. If you need to make a journey from Leeds to London and back with one other person, it makes perfect ecological sense to take the train. However, it makes no economic sense at all. The cost of train tickets in this country is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
The green man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Anyone know anything about this? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-owners-using-harness-instead-25030451 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/901/note/made Apparently it's insisting it has to be a collar, not a harness. It worries me because the boy is too strong for a collar, and his harness has a tag attached with his name and address on it. Is this just panicmongering, or have their been actual cases where a harnessed dog owner has been prosecuted?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
That line from Starmer can be interpreted both ways depending on your angle, the perfect middle ground. One interpretation (the TERF one) would be that trans women would be excluded from women only spaces, the more charitable explanation that you would hope is correct is that women only spaces should be available to all women. Kieth will carefully avoid making it clear as much as he possibly can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Anyone know anything about this? Reading the attached legislation, the wording is that the collar has to have the name/address tag on it. However, if you had proof that the harness the dog was in had their name and address on it, I'd imagine most judges would dismiss the case as no harm would have arisen. Could you just put a collar with a name tag on your dog but use a harness as well for the walks. That's what I do with my boarder collie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 15:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1440681526224572429
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Coming out and specifically highlighting a small part of the EA about exemptions, in the context of the past week, is clearly transphobic. I say so because if you stand in the middle between bigotry and anti-bigotry, of any kind, you are a bigot. gently caress Keith, can’t wait for the oval office to drink himself to death
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
Like I said, why the gently caress would you announce something like this without first clearing it with sufficient people to make sure you can get the drat measure approved. The man's useless and is clearly being advised by idiots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/DeborahMeaden/status/1440413211958788096?s=20 Whoopeee - lifted tariffs on beef and scotch. #BritishNutrition (but I mainly posted this for the silencing of the interviewer by Johnson's aides).
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2021 16:21
|
|