Dunge

I’m obviously not the dyed-in-the-wool Tory I used to think I was because I want this.

Am I the only one who doesn’t get Taylor Swift? I mean she seems like a decent person and a shrewd businesswoman, but I couldn’t even hum you a single song of hers and I’m usually quite on board with middle-of-the-road (sh!te) pop. She seems more like a cult than an artist. (There are far worse cults out there.)

Certainly I’m noticing a concerted and coordinated campaign from their friendly media to get momentum in their direction. A lot of favour for Stella Braverman too. For what it’s worth, as someone who’s mostly voted Conservative in my life, their new policies do nothing to attract me back - only push me further away - and I consider Braverman a horrible person.

Definitely remains one of the better ideas in recent years to me.

Why not now? Why any time? Imagine the furore if a prominent anti-vaxxer was being pulled for this at the height of the pandemic. It’s actually a relatively neutral time for it to happen.

Only the other day someone was telling me how it unironically rained on their wedding day. Pick that one apart.

Where I work, we’ve been largely WFH since Covid. What you write here is demonstrably untrue for us.

It can be an introvert/extrovert things as well though, can’t it? There will be plenty of introverts who know that making small talk with colleagues in an office is a really draining part of their day, while extroverts will be energised by it and struggle without it when working from home. I often think that policy makers and a lot of directors tend to work on the basis that if we’re not being extroverted then we’re doing something wrong.

Hybrid working should be the future - some time in the office and some at home. It’s highly frustrating that it’s not being pushed as well because it’s one of the few environmental policies that would be embraced by the public. It’s an open goal that people are refusing to score.

Yeah, I’m not sure whether Daggers wants a reply from me or not but I don’t really want thing to descend into a massive argument. It’s clear the majority here agree more with him on the matter anyway.

A little, but he was a different kettle of fish to Truss. I don’t think he’s a political fantasist, although the other three, guilty as charged. Some of the things that he has stood out on have been right - he’s been heavily for supporting Ukraine from the start and his record on supporting the fight against climate change is far stronger than Sunak’s, who is consistently weak on the subject and clearly doesn’t care about it, making that the worst thing about him. Boris was also something of a protest against parliament for trying to prevent Brexit for three years. Essentially, Boris was a man for a moment who got dealt the twin terrible hands of Ukraine and Covid, the former of which he dealt with admirably but the latter of which struck at his weak spots of lack of detail and integrity. I get why many detest Boris. He is not a man of honour. I don’t believe I demand purity from people in charge, particularly those who don’t preach it, but I expect standards - standards that he failed to meet. He also dragged his party and the reputation of parliament down with him. He absolutely should be finished with politics now. But he was a man for a moment. I have zero regrets about voting for him when the alternative was Corbyn. Literally zero. Easiest vote of my life.

Truss wanted to lower taxes - or, frankly, do anything - at a time when inflation was running out of control. It’s the kind of thing that’s a fair option (depending on your political standpoint) at the appropriate time, but that was miles off the appropriate time and she still doesn’t get that despite £30bn being wiped off the UK economy. Sunak was the only one of that group in the running for leadership who stated that we had to get inflation under control before anything else. Everyone else was either saying the same nonsense Liz Truss was, prattling on about culture wars during an inflation crisis or, in the case of Penny Mordaunt, saying nothing of any note at all. I’ve said before on here that my vote’s going to Starmer now but that’s not Sunak’s fault in isolation. He’s not great but he’s one of the better Conservatives right now and isn’t the primary problem with the party. The problem is that there’s a majority in there now - in the membership - that are more interested in pet projects and dreams than practical government. That’s not the Conservative Party I used to know and is why Starmer’s an attractive prospect despite his beigeness.

Her appointment as leader was the breaking point for me with the modern Conservative Party. It was the moment I realised what a gigantic hole they’re in because this was their membership’s decision. It was obvious her economic plans were ridiculous and that not one leadership candidate aside from Sunak had a clue what to do about the country’s finances, but they voted her in anyway. They chose to vote in an unintelligent tinpot Thatcher, someone who isn’t talented enough by rights to even be an MP, let alone in the cabinet. The Conservatives need a clearout, a cull of idiots like her. I just don’t see it happening any time soon.

Innocent until proven guilty is the least worst option we have. But it’s a legal concept rather than a thought concept.

I think the problem parties have with the immigration question is that through the variety of opinions on it, the ones on the side of being anti-immigration are the ones most likely to let the topic influence their vote. ie Even if most people are positive toward Labour’s migration policy, the heavier impact on voting intention comes from the minority who aren’t. That said, it’s very hard at this point to see that being enough to stop a Labour outright majority government rolling into Number 10 at the next election, and what looks like a comfortable one at that.

I used this exact phrase in a meeting today, but then I didn’t - thus leaving the circle forever incomplete. What are the consequences of this?

Put them down. Sorry if that sounds mean or cruel but these creatures shouldn’t exist.

I’d still be supporting the Scottish curling team over the English rugby union team. Although that would be an interesting match, granted.

You know that he’ll have one. It’ll be a pack of lies and propaganda designed to distract from war crimes, civilian massacres and one of the clearest examples of there actually being a “good” side in a war in modern history, but he’ll have one.

Not sure how unpopular this will be or not, but: Normally I’m patriotic by nature when it comes to big international sporting events. British curlers competing? C’mon Britain, get them stones right in there. But this Rugby World Cup has me cold in terms of the England team. I don’t have any affinity toward them at all. I haven’t ever since Eddie Jones was installed as head coach. (I know he isn’t anymore but still.) They come across as arrogant, entitled. I’d even go so far as to say that I actively don’t want them to win and I’m annoyed for everyone else that they’ve been granted such an easy draw.

You can find any photo that proves anything online if you’re looking for it.

A couple of months back I asked a couple of friends of mine who are both teachers in secondary schools for their thoughts on the matter. One of them is very left wing and vehemently pro-trans on all matters; maybe not quite to OzLeicester levels but not far off. His thoughts were along the lines of this being a crisis manufactured by the right wing press and similar. Which was a viewpoint but didn’t advance the argument for me. The other I’d describe as more naturally centre left and she gave the example of what life would have been like for people our age when we were of GCSE age (1990s). She said that, back in those days, people experiencing gender dysphoria wouldn’t have had many options available to them and would likely have experimented in dangerous ways, seeking out strangers, seeking out sex, etc. Instead, currently she says that there are about one or two students per year group who are demonstrating clear signs of gender dysphoria and seeking to live as an opposite/different gender. She pointed out that this was a far safer state to explore their identity (albeit without medication) than what similar people would have experienced in the past. She also said that some of the students go on to remain the/an alternative gender while others “revert” to their original gender in a year or two to come. But essentially the idea was that they have the space and time to come to the right conclusion themselves, whatever that right conclusion is for them. I thought that was a great take on the situation.

Are you sure you have the right link there? The question of how and whether to treat Under 18s with medication feels to me like a really significant question in this - which I appreciate you’re looking to answer, but the study in that link is for adults, and explicitly mentions preventing two individuals from partaking because they were underage. I’m not even sure what the laws and ethics are on doing this sort of trial for U18s, mind. But one of the pro-trans arguments I’m going to need a lot of convincing on is the suggestion that stopping trans-identifying minors from going through puberty is a good idea.