Share this page!

Sam Freedman Profile picture
Twitter logo
20 Sep, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Thanks to everyone for helpful responses to this. Learnt a lot. Seems like a lot of the debate comes down to how you interpret 13.57 to 13.60 of the EHRC's Statutory Code of Practice on the 2010 Equalities Act. equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/…
In particular how should this paragraph be interpreted? (Doesn't help that it is missing the last words of the last sentence which should be "aim"). Image
There are no cases on different intepretations (e.g. between a transwoman who wants to use a single sex service to whom that service has been denied).
But this seems to be the criticial question as having a Gender Recognition Certificate is very rare (1-2% of all trans people) and makes no legal difference to how one would intepret access to single sex services.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Sam Freedman

Sam Freedman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Samfr

Sam Freedman Profile picture
22 Sep
The best heuristic I can come up with for trying to imagine the reaction of a normal voter to stuff is thinking through the indirect ways they will experience a decision, as they're v unlikely to engage with the actual decision.
Like there's a load of spending review decisions that I can see are going to have an impact on cost of living - so even though most people won't be engaging with them now how much will they blame the Government for lower spending power in a few months?
The hardest things to spot are the very occassional moments in politics when lots of voters make a simultaneous negative judgement about character - Brown "bottling" the election being the obvious example.
Read 4 tweets
Sam Freedman Profile picture
9 Sep
The NHS budget increase means it will represent 44% of all public service spending in 2024/25 up from 27% in 1999-2000. The real story of austerity is not a reduction in the size of the state but the NHS (and pensions) sucking up all the cash.
Covid will hopefully be a one off but the demographic and healthcare trends driving this aren't going away. At some point it stops being sustainable without some radical thinking or technological change.
Another way of expressing the issue. In cash terms grants to local authorities have fallen by 30% since 2010 and *before covid* the NHS budget had increase by 20% since 2010.
Read 4 tweets
Sam Freedman Profile picture
8 Sep
An army of 42 people is a shit army. That's not even going to be able to invade Andorra.
Nice example of a common maths confusion. £9M (combined salary of said army) is 0.025% of £36bn. But people find it intuitively hard to conceptualize the different between a million and a billion.
The classic example is a million seconds is 11.5 days and a billion seconds is just under 32 years.
Read 5 tweets
Sam Freedman Profile picture
7 Sep
Pedantically entertained that they started the graph in 1950 otherwise it would have shown taxes were higher a few years after the war and that the headline was wrong.
But also the Telegraph should be pleased it's like the War again when Britain was great; men were men etc etc...
Of the course the "death knell of Conservatism" line is absolute nonsense. The only consistent principle of Conservatism (not conservatism) is to retain power or get it back. From the Second Reform Act to tariffs to tax rises. Whatever it takes.
Read 4 tweets
Sam Freedman Profile picture
7 Sep
Quick take on the announcement:

1) No issues with tax increases but it's the wrong taxes. Should be done through taxing wealth and higher incomes. Should hit me a lot more than this levy does and low paid workers a lot less.
2) Creating a new tax - a third tax on income - seems batshit when we already have two that could be used (if you want to use that method). God knows how many un-thought-through problems will emerge over the next few days.
3) Most of this money goes to the NHS and though the claim is that more of it will go to social care as costs increase after 2025 that will not happen in practice. NHS budget will not be cut. So really this pushes the problem of paying for social care into the next Parliament.
Read 9 tweets
Sam Freedman Profile picture
6 Sep
The most annoying thing about the NI row is the reinforcement of the idea that you can "pay" for long term recurring spending with a specific unhypothecated tax increase or spending cut. There's just one big pot of cash.
Maybe some new variant of covid leads to £10bn extra costs next year. Or a military involvement or cost of debt repayment increases more than expected. What "pays" for that?! Doesn't make any sense.
The real Qs are how much do we need to spend on social care vs other priorities. And what is the best way to raise the overall amount of money we need. Imaginary hypothecation is just fantasy politics to make people see a connection that isn't there.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Samfr has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Samfr!

Read all threads by @Samfr

:(