Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

 Is this a thing that goes on? Do parties just put down the names of people to stand and then they never campaign? 

Wouldn't it be the sort of thing that you might do if you wanted to game the campaign spending or boost your ongoing short money?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money

"In the financial year commencing 1 April 2023, eligible parties receive:

General funding for opposition parties
    £21,438.33 for every seat won at the last election plus £42.82 for every 200 votes gained by the party."

Edited by johnnyboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

How much does it cost them to stand those candidates? If they were relatively confident of getting enough votes to get the deposit back at least (i.e. that the name of the Reform party alone was enough to get 5%) then there's no other cost right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
6 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

How much does it cost them to stand those candidates? If they were relatively confident of getting enough votes to get the deposit back at least (i.e. that the name of the Reform party alone was enough to get 5%) then there's no other cost right?

£500 deposit which you lose if you don't get 5% One of those candidates got 1600 votes in that constituency so that's a net loss of £160ish but I don't know if that is per constituency or total in the election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

Well that didn't take long, did it.

Get ready for years of stories of trans kids who have killed themselves. Wes Streeting is a murderer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Get ready for years of stories of trans kids who have killed themselves. Wes Streeting is a murderer.

Even the Cass report wasn’t able to find the evidence to recommend a permanent ban. This is reactionary politics at its absolute worst. An attempt to appease a band of anti-trans extremists that, as you acknowledge, will cost lives. I hope he reconsiders, or has just said this to win points; but has no intention of following through. It’s just awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, BigJag said:

This and the last government are not interested in saving lives. They are only interested in maximising control and profit. 

This is what all governments do, but hey let's judge this one on roughly 8 days of been in charge. 

That isn't to say this is a good, it's not it's a terrible one thats been done to appease idiots, but as the Twoster points out even the Cass report did not recommend a permanent ban, so let's hope some sense can be seen at some point. 

I've got no skin in this game, I don't have kids and it must be challenging for parents and children going through this, and let's hope that the government's new science minister can have better luck persuading this government to follow the science so that life is easier for all involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeremy Corbyn is doing a podcast recording at Union Chapel, which is not too far from me, about the election, what's next for his movement and international/environmental politics generally.

I'm not a Corbynista by any stretch at all, but I'm off work on that date so have bought a ticket as he's always an interesting listen at least and it will be fascinating to hear his thoughts about having to run against Labour. Looking forward to it.

Edited by d-d-d-dAz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I don't generally like JOLYON Maugham but he's been incredibly thorough and well researched on this subject, and I'd urge everyone to take some time out of their day to read this thread.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the dozen MPs who signed the Trans Kids Erasure Bill (or "Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill" as it was officially called) back in December, nine lost their seats earlier this month, and two of those didn't even finish second in their constituencies. 

But what's the point of proving that transphobia isn't a vote winner if the incoming minister is going to go down this route? 

A policy that goes even further than the Cass Report isn't "evidence-based", it's pure bigotry. If the new Health Secretary wants to be seen as "non-ideological" then he ought to stop pandering to people who fixate on what's between kids' legs and start looking them in the eye instead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Paid Members

Even the Twitter Starmeroids have been having a hard time coming up with a convincing defence for this, but I'm ready to hear one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...