PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

UK Politics

Very interesting. According to this guy on Sky News (their Deputy Political Editor), Badenoch's Doubling Down was NOT part of the plan - Not sure whether to laugh or cry!


Sunak has now also doubled down - whether or not he felt boxed into a corner by Badenoch. Starmer’s cock up on the £28bn has helped Sunak out here - but it remains appalling that Sunak is not only refusing to apologise for his own slip-up - but now actually trying to pin the blame on Starmer… trying to make political capital out of it.

 
Help, they're coming for our children! The woke brigade!!!
As we discussed on the Trans thread, there was evidence from the Cass Report, Helen Barnes' excellent journalism, and from Tavistock whistleblowers that this does happen. It is an issue that is far more complex and nuanced than the usual political partisan bickering.
 
Sunak has now also doubled down - whether or not he felt boxed into a corner by Badenoch. Starmer’s cock up on the £28bn has helped Sunak out here - but it remains appalling that Sunak is not only refusing to apologise for his own slip-up - but now actually trying to pin the blame on Starmer… trying to make political capital out of it.

If I have read the correct and full transcription then people ought to get a bloody grip. What I read was he accused Starmer of u-turns and being incapable of defining a woman.

If that is all then I’m not sure what all the fuss is about

If there’s more to it then fair enough
 
If I have read the correct and full transcription then people ought to get a bloody grip. What I read was he accused Starmer of u-turns and being incapable of defining a woman.

If that is all then I’m not sure what all the fuss is about

If there’s more to it then fair enough

Its interesting though in the sense Sunak infers in his jokey attack line that defining when someone is or isnt a woman is just a matter of determining your tackle complement. Is it better to recognise that its a complex area that confuses most of us, not least politicians, and which the legal sytem has to define presumably in a more complex way not least because some people are in transition. Or is it better to imply that its a simple black and white issue with no in beteween and even the bloke down the pub can understand it.
 
If I have read the correct and full transcription then people ought to get a bloody grip. What I read was he accused Starmer of u-turns and being incapable of defining a woman.

If that is all then I’m not sure what all the fuss is about

If there’s more to it then fair enough

If Sunak had been making a reasoned, sensitive argument why he believed in his definition of a woman, things would have been different.

I don’t think news articles are explaining things well. One example is that it is important people properly understand the 99% reference.

I was watching it live. When Starmer first stood up, he made a very big point of welcoming Brianna’s mother to the Public Gallery

So a (very) short time later, when Sunak reeled off his pre-prepared script (which he always uses to avoid answering Qs at PMQs) - it was therefore a thoughtless error when Sunak said what he said.

His script listed a number of U-turns Starmer has supposedly done - and his glorious laugh-out-loud punchline was to jibe at a past statement from Starmer that 99.9% of women don’t have a penis…
Whether or not you disagree with Starmer’s stance on that definition, the way Sunak delivered his line WAS belittling to transwomen and more to the point, it is very likely to have been hurtful to Brianna’s mother - Brianna presumably being one of the 0.1% that Sunak was offending in a “jokey” fashion to score political points.

I am sure Sunak was somewhat mortified when the penny dropped that he had followed his script, forgetting that Brianna’s mother was there. An apology would definitely be appropriate - not falsely clutching his pearls in horror, pointing his finger at the guy who has called him out.
 
Sunak has now also doubled down - whether or not he felt boxed into a corner by Badenoch. Starmer’s cock up on the £28bn has helped Sunak out here - but it remains appalling that Sunak is not only refusing to apologise for his own slip-up - but now actually trying to pin the blame on Starmer… trying to make political capital out of it.

Apologise? Grow up.
 
If Sunak had been making a reasoned, sensitive argument why he believed in his definition of a woman, things would have been different.

I don’t think news articles are explaining things well. One example is that it is important people properly understand the 99% reference.

I was watching it live. When Starmer first stood up, he made a very big point of welcoming Brianna’s mother to the Public Gallery

So a (very) short time later, when Sunak reeled off his pre-prepared script (which he always uses to avoid answering Qs at PMQs) - it was therefore a thoughtless error when Sunak said what he said.

His script listed a number of U-turns Starmer has supposedly done - and his glorious laugh-out-loud punchline was to jibe at a past statement from Starmer that 99.9% of women don’t have a penis…
Whether or not you disagree with Starmer’s stance on that definition, the way Sunak delivered his line WAS belittling to transwomen and more to the point, it is very likely to have been hurtful to Brianna’s mother - Brianna presumably being one of the 0.1% that Sunak was offending in a “jokey” fashion to score political points.

I am sure Sunak was somewhat mortified when the penny dropped that he had followed his script, forgetting that Brianna’s mother was there. An apology would definitely be appropriate - not falsely clutching his pearls in horror, pointing his finger at the guy who has called him out.
Utter bollocks as usual.
 
Bit too similar to the " righteous" that told blacks what they should be called , what they should be offended by and what ultimately they should become... When almost all of them just wanted was to be accepted as the individuals that they are, be themselves and get on with their boring lives like the rest of us without any hassle.

Maybe it's me

Edit...... The political side of this is completely lost on me. I'd have Sunak ( and Starmer) and their corrupt class all shot tomorrow but I've no idea what Sunak said that's important here... Until once again the " righteous " decipher some sort of warped thinking into it.
 
Addition.................. Yes, on balance I do believe that many gays are being brow beaten into believing that they are transgender...... Quite funny really when you think about it:

Two gay blokes get transgenderised into becoming women and the result... : Two Lesbians.. :D
 
Addition.................. Yes, on balance I do believe that many gays are being brow beaten into believing that they are transgender...... Quite funny really when you think about it:

Two gay blokes get transgenderised into becoming women and the result... : Two Lesbians.. :D

The main problem here isnt about whether gays or trans are being encouraged to do this or that. Its that if youre a child you dont have much a clue about anything and are in a strange evolutionary period where youre potentially very impressionable. Every adult been through it and if anyone had agreed with us to go through surgery to reflect our weird and wonderful teenage viewpoint, we might have been horrified reflecting back on it sone years later as an adult. Adults need to stop treating children as smaller adults. Generally.
 
Starmer has now decided to cancel the £28BN “ Green Project “

This could have an impact on voting intentions at the next GE…
 
If Sunak had been making a reasoned, sensitive argument why he believed in his definition of a woman, things would have been different.

I don’t think news articles are explaining things well. One example is that it is important people properly understand the 99% reference.

I was watching it live. When Starmer first stood up, he made a very big point of welcoming Brianna’s mother to the Public Gallery

So a (very) short time later, when Sunak reeled off his pre-prepared script (which he always uses to avoid answering Qs at PMQs) - it was therefore a thoughtless error when Sunak said what he said.

His script listed a number of U-turns Starmer has supposedly done - and his glorious laugh-out-loud punchline was to jibe at a past statement from Starmer that 99.9% of women don’t have a penis…
Whether or not you disagree with Starmer’s stance on that definition, the way Sunak delivered his line WAS belittling to transwomen and more to the point, it is very likely to have been hurtful to Brianna’s mother - Brianna presumably being one of the 0.1% that Sunak was offending in a “jokey” fashion to score political points.

I am sure Sunak was somewhat mortified when the penny dropped that he had followed his script, forgetting that Brianna’s mother was there. An apology would definitely be appropriate - not falsely clutching his pearls in horror, pointing his finger at the guy who has called him out.
Thanks Reggie, a little more context and it is obvious that what he said was crass/ill judged.

However. I really don’t think an apology would be correctly interpreted. Instead it would likely be weaponised for use against those questioning the current direction of travel.

There are women.
And.
There are trans-women.

They are not the same.

The first are humans born with bodies which were designed to produce eggs, give birth and menstruate. Some cannot get pregnant but can usually do the other two. Very occasionally there are women who cannot do all three.
The second are humans who wish to live as a woman and would like to approximate to womanhood. This is fine but society needs to find a way to provide for these people so that they don’t disadvantage women in shared spaces and sports.

Ten years ago when a young boy enjoyed dressing as a girl, people generally let them grow out of it. 80% of them grew up straight, 19.9% turned out to be gay/bisexual and a very tiny fraction had gender dysphoria and wished to live as a woman.

Now, increasingly ill-informed people, interfere, with the very best intentions and in most cases they do more harm than good.
 
Thanks Reggie, a little more context and it is obvious that what he said was crass/ill judged.

However. I really don’t think an apology would be correctly interpreted. Instead it would likely be weaponised for use against those questioning the current direction of travel.

There are women.
And.
There are trans-women.

They are not the same.

The first are humans born with bodies which were designed to produce eggs, give birth and menstruate. Some cannot get pregnant but can usually do the other two. Very occasionally there are women who cannot do all three.
The second are humans who wish to live as a woman and would like to approximate to womanhood. This is fine but society needs to find a way to provide for these people so that they don’t disadvantage women in shared spaces and sports.

Ten years ago when a young boy enjoyed dressing as a girl, people generally let them grow out of it. 80% of them grew up straight, 19.9% turned out to be gay/bisexual and a very tiny fraction had gender dysphoria and wished to live as a woman.

Now, increasingly ill-informed people, interfere, with the very best intentions and in most cases they do more harm than good.
Who cares that the lad's Mum was in the chamber? It was not linked, only very tenuously by idiots and does not change the truth.
 
Who cares that the lad's Mum was in the chamber? It was not linked, only very tenuously by idiots and does not change the truth.
I agree that it does not change the truth, that’s what I’m saying.

However, in ordinary circumstances he might have apologised for his insensitivity at this time. However, if he does apologise, the apology will likely be misused to push the narrative that saying trans-women are not women is no longer acceptable.

That’s my point
 
Thanks Reggie, a little more context and it is obvious that what he said was crass/ill judged.

However. I really don’t think an apology would be correctly interpreted. Instead it would likely be weaponised for use against those questioning the current direction of travel.

There are women.
And.
There are trans-women.

They are not the same.

The first are humans born with bodies which were designed to produce eggs, give birth and menstruate. Some cannot get pregnant but can usually do the other two. Very occasionally there are women who cannot do all three.
The second are humans who wish to live as a woman and would like to approximate to womanhood. This is fine but society needs to find a way to provide for these people so that they don’t disadvantage women in shared spaces and sports.

Ten years ago when a young boy enjoyed dressing as a girl, people generally let them grow out of it. 80% of them grew up straight, 19.9% turned out to be gay/bisexual and a very tiny fraction had gender dysphoria and wished to live as a woman.

Now, increasingly ill-informed people, interfere, with the very best intentions and in most cases they do more harm than good.

It's certainly complex. I don't pretend to be an expert on these things.

I personally think that Sunak's words were clearly requiring of an apology... but I do understand that weaponisation could then happen. Unfortunately both sides are building a bad record on this sort of thing - to the point that most politicians never ever admit to anything unless there is no alternative (and in the case of the last 5 years of Conservative government, the Tories don't admit anything even if it is contrary to glaringly obvious evidence, staring everyone in the face. Such is politics nowadays.

I don't like Starmer... and if he had that moment again, I suspect he would have found a much more fitting and cutting put-down of Sunak's crass remarks - because he did leave a smidgeon of room for pearl-clutching from Sunak and supporters. The difference is that Sunak's initial put down will have been painstakingly scrutinised and rehearsed several times beforehand, whereas Starmer had only seconds to decide how to respond to crass remarks.
 
Top