Burnham has won. More turmoil?

[KatiePricesKnickers]

Now Burnham has won, it will trigger a leadership contest, and if he wins, a new chancellor of the exchequer.

Surely this cannot be good for the country, or its finances?

YABU - Burnham is a true leader who will improve the UK for everyone and be a competent and respected leader.

YANBU - FFS, here we go again.

Ordering people to think and behave in certain ways isn't progressive. That doesn't mean the word has changed its meaning.

I could say my hair is blue. It's clearly not. That doesn't mean blue is now brown.

Over time words can change their meaning. ....woke and gay for example

Everyone on the left is progressive in accordance with the definition I gave, because that's what being left is. If you're not progressive your values won't align with the left.
However in terms of your definition, that is, believing people can change sex, I don't know. Individual left wing people have differing views on GI.

Concepts like progressiveness and fascism haven't changed. But I can see why some would be invested in trying to pretend that they have.

Anyway, I hope AB can make improvements to this country, get a grip on employment and immigration, help for business etc. If he doesn't, Reform will be waiting in the wings (probably scrapping it out with Restore!)

But the country is in dire need of good leadership.

You are deflecting. There are many labour mps who "believed" that TWAW

Yes, so the TRA keep telling us about 'woman'. I'd have thought you'd have been opposed to arbitrary and imposed changes to the meaning of words used to describe people.

I have never kept track, so I don't have a list, but if you do, I'm not sure what you're asking me? I'm left wing and progressive. I don't believe people can change sex. I'm not alone in that.

No these are terms the left throw around to make themselves look good and the right look bad.

Absolutely not. Wanting to change the meaning of terms like progressive, while apparently innocuous, actually demonstrates the danger that we're in from malign actors and from fascism. Look at how Starmer was directed away from left wing policies and persuaded to ape the right when talking about issues like immigration and benefits. To be progressive became to be zealous, to be "woke", to ignore the concerns of "real people". Starmer had to prove he was none of those things, weakening the left of politics and driving the Overton window ever rightwards. That is dangerous, wherever you sit on the political spectrum. Without genuine choice, societies are open to totalitarianism. It's a similar tactics to Trump's lies. Words, truth and concepts become meaningless.

Absolutely. And given PP is obviously very concerned about the rise of trans rights activism, I'd have thought that really didn't need pointing out.
Language has been central to that debate. When 'gender' a term previously used interchangeably with sex, was suddenly given a new meaning of 'internal sense of self as a man or woman' and then used interchangeably with sex again. When woman stopped being a word used to describe an adult human female, and became a word for anyone who wanted to live in accordance with stereotypes of womanhood, it was constantly pointed out that language matters, and rightly so, because its crucial to our understanding of the world.
We can no more decide that fascist now means people on the left who try to shut down debate, and progressive now means people who believe humans can change sex than we can decide that woman now means adult human female plus some men.

The Guardian keeps saying that Starmer is wxpected to ho of his own accord by Monday or announce a transition from Monday.
Even his own party is fed up with him.
I will be happy to see him going. No more giving contracts to mates that we cannot even trust.

Was surprised to hear Starmer may just go. I thought he'd have more backbone for the fight.

It won't be a one horse race though.

The general public don't get a say.

The people who do get a say have already not chosen Andy Burnham... TWICE.

President Trump on his Truth social page has said that the PM will resign tomorrow! How mad is this!
( breaking news on lbc just now )

Orange buffoon should mind his own business, seriously.

Gawd you would think he is busy enough with Iran without getting involved in UK politics.

Contracts for mates? Are you thinking of Johnson?

Rolling news lectern-watch in the morning then. At least the weather's good, no chance of a Sunak-style drenching which would just about put the tin lid on it.

Johnson did, yeap.
But Starmer-Mandelson-Palantir is the sad actuallity, Johnson is long gone.....

I don’t think Starmer has been a good PM, but a lot of it seems to have been self inflicted. He must literally be kicking himself for his timidity and indeed his backing of Reeves for Chancellor. And the compromises he made on Mandelson… all of it looked rather like something he had to be persuaded to do, rather than instinctive. But in the end, he’s the one deciding what happens. PM is a one time job. The best thing is to realise that and go for what you believe in. I don’t think we ever really did with Starmer.

Sure, that reason isn't it? Nothing to do with them being" all the gear, no idea" growth killers.

I'm progressive and not on the left. I believe in protecting the most vulnerable in society. For me this is poor girls, particularly those from the care system. I'm not seeing the left protecting these girls from rape and abuse in their 1000s. See the grooming gang reports. It's pure cowardice.
Women prisoners too, not protected from men in women's prisons. Likewise mentally and physically ill women in the NHS. Men are allowed on their wards

Everyone on the left is progressive isn't the same as saying everyone progressive is on the left, so i get you can be progressive and not left wing.
My priority is also women and girls and completely agree with you about single sex spaces and that the handling of the grooming gangs. I don't think in a society dominated by men the protection of women and girls is ever prioritised from either side of the political spectrum. That's why feminists should unite across the divide when it comes to the politics of sex.

^Well said, I agree with you entirely, as well as with @Bunnyofhope.

That is true. How long have politicians had to get this right? A long time. Britain would look very different if violence against women and girls was prioritised. It is just a slogan, no money, and nothing ever changes.

Good for hand wringing. Not actual money or protective policy.