Stop voting for fucking Tories

[C69]

Bigots Unite !

Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) leader Jim Allister has announced a formal "partnership" with Reform UK in the upcoming general election.

He made the announcement as Reform UK leader Richard Tice attended the TUV's annual conference in County Antrim.

The two leaders signed a "memorandum of understanding" at the conference.

And the parties will later announce "agreed candidates" for constituencies in Northern Ireland in the forthcoming Westminster election.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ir ... s-68547753

If reform takes say 16% of the vote and the tories end up around18% then fptp will really hurt.

Fingers crossed

[Hal Jordan]

If anyone is wondering why the Tories won't do the decent thing and retreat to the library with a bottle of whisky and a revolver, check out the freeport shenanigans and transfer of Council assets to a corporation that Houchen is chair of that Gove has approved.

Plenty of that to go before, what is it, January 2025 when they have to go.

[dpedin]

I see Kemi Badenough is doing the media rounds and making things worse again! According to Twitter/X she has managed to piss off almost every media interviewer she has met so far with the greatest of ease, even the friendly ones. I cannot believe this arrogant, infantile, stupid twat got anywhere near a Government.

[sockwithaticket]

I see Kemi Badenough is doing the media rounds and making things worse again! According to Twitter/X she has managed to piss off almost every media interviewer she has met so far with the greatest of ease, even the friendly ones. I cannot believe this arrogant, infantile, stupid twat got anywhere near a Government.

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

[dpedin]

I see Kemi Badenough is doing the media rounds and making things worse again! According to Twitter/X she has managed to piss off almost every media interviewer she has met so far with the greatest of ease, even the friendly ones. I cannot believe this arrogant, infantile, stupid twat got anywhere near a Government.

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

'Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most.'. Hardly a high bar? She also manages to keep these attributes very well hidden. If she is one of the best of them then god help us all!

[tabascoboy]

Five episodes of GB News programmes presented by Tory MPs found to have broken Ofcom rules

The channel has been warned it could face a fine or have its licence suspended if it breaks the same rules again. The watchdog said getting politicians to host news shows "risks undermining the integrity and credibility of regulated broadcast news".

Five episodes of GB News programmes that were presented by Tory MPs have been found by Ofcom to have breached impartiality rules.

The watchdog's probe examined two shows presented by former House of Commons leader Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, and three jointly hosted by former pensions secretary Esther McVey and her husband - backbencher Philip Davies.

Ofcom said that under the Broadcasting Code, news must be presented with due impartiality and "a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification".

It found there was no "exceptional justification" in the five cases they investigated and the news was "therefore not presented with due impartiality".

GB News has now been put on notice that it could face a statuary sanction if it breaches the rules again, which could involve a financial penalty or having its licence suspended or revoked.

The watchdog said: "We found that two episodes of Jacob Rees-Mogg's State Of The Nation, two episodes of Friday Morning With Esther And Phil, and one episode of Saturday Morning With Esther And Phil, broadcast during May and June 2023, failed to comply with Rules 5.1 and 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code."

https://news.sky.com/story/five-episode ... s-13097529

[SaintK]

.............a chilling development for freedom of speach!

[sockwithaticket]

Regulators in this country are a joke.

Caught with multiple violations, but all they get is a warning that future breaches may result in sanction.

[fishfoodie]

Regulators in this country are a joke.

Caught with multiple violations, but all they get is a warning that future breaches may result in sanction.

Won't be a problem for much longer. The way things are going there won't be enough Tory MPs to fit all slots in Gbeebies & the other one

[I like neeps]

I see Kemi Badenough is doing the media rounds and making things worse again! According to Twitter/X she has managed to piss off almost every media interviewer she has met so far with the greatest of ease, even the friendly ones. I cannot believe this arrogant, infantile, stupid twat got anywhere near a Government.

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

Great podcast is On God, What Now. Started listening last month but it's really very good.

[Slick]

I see Kemi Badenough is doing the media rounds and making things worse again! According to Twitter/X she has managed to piss off almost every media interviewer she has met so far with the greatest of ease, even the friendly ones. I cannot believe this arrogant, infantile, stupid twat got anywhere near a Government.

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

Great podcast is On God, What Now. Started listening last month but it's really very good.

Just listened to the latest episode on this recommendation, very good.

Is it always right wing bashing or are they generally more balanced?

[sockwithaticket]

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

Great podcast is On God, What Now. Started listening last month but it's really very good.

Just listened to the latest episode on this recommendation, very good.

Is it always right wing bashing or are they generally more balanced?

They've given Labour some stick when it's warranted, but they do mostly focus on what the government's up to and given the seemingly neverending stream of scandal, intrigue and gaffe that tends to monopolise their air time.

[Tichtheid]

Court ruling erodes climate activists’ ability to defend themselves – as the planet heats up


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... land-wales

[Paddington Bear]

The consent defence has allowed some protests which very clearly would not have been consented to, not convinced this is really a controversial ruling

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

[Tichtheid]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

[Paddington Bear]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Is it state overreach to prevent the destruction of private property?

[Tichtheid]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Is it state overreach to prevent the destruction of private property?

In this specific case, yes.

The short-sightedness of rulings like this make me despair. Huge swathes of land are going to become flooded, especially around the Thames and low-lying areas around the UK. If sanctity of private property is the prime motivator then tens of thousands of homes are going to be destroyed and many many more will be uninsurable due to proximity to floodlands.
That is one tiny consequence of climate change.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Why has it crushed protest? It might have established consequence but that doesn't seem the same thing, or is it only a planet defining emergency absent of consequence?

Fwiw I hardly think their actions useful, there are better ways to protest than to destroy the property of others, and it's not like climate change is an issue one struggles to raise awareness of. One struggles to overcome inertia, political, business and private, and one struggles to overcome humanity has a great desire for selfishness and greed (and stupidity), but people throwing paint over stuff or glueing themselves to roads looks a separate thing entirely to moving the debate forwards.

[Tichtheid]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Why has it crushed protest?

First the right to give context for their actions was removed from protesters when they were tried on public nuisance offences, now the recourse to a law from over 50 years ago has been removed. This is just another part of the criminalising of protest.
Did you know that more people were charged with rioting, which carries a sentence of up to ten years iirc, during the “kill the bill” protests in Bristol than had been for previous decades combined? It’s rather ironic that the bill in question was about increasing police powers and restricting the rights to protest.

[Raggs]

Looks an eminently sensible ruling

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Why has it crushed protest? It might have established consequence but that doesn't seem the same thing, or is it only a planet defining emergency absent of consequence?

Fwiw I hardly think their actions useful, there are better ways to protest than to destroy the property of others, and it's not like climate change is an issue one struggles to raise awareness of. One struggles to overcome inertia, political, business and private, and one struggles to overcome humanity has a great desire for selfishness and greed (and stupidity), but people throwing paint over stuff or glueing themselves to roads looks a separate thing entirely to moving the debate forwards.

We talk a lot more about climate change in the wake of one of their protests than we do otherwise. Even if it starts with "Well why did they do that!". It absolutely raises awareness and keeps it front of mind.

People tell them they should protest the oil companies etc. Only they do exactly that, but it never hits the news, it's dog bites postman stuff.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Why has it crushed protest? It might have established consequence but that doesn't seem the same thing, or is it only a planet defining emergency absent of consequence?

Fwiw I hardly think their actions useful, there are better ways to protest than to destroy the property of others, and it's not like climate change is an issue one struggles to raise awareness of. One struggles to overcome inertia, political, business and private, and one struggles to overcome humanity has a great desire for selfishness and greed (and stupidity), but people throwing paint over stuff or glueing themselves to roads looks a separate thing entirely to moving the debate forwards.

We talk a lot more about climate change in the wake of one of their protests than we do otherwise. Even if it starts with "Well why did they do that!". It absolutely raises awareness and keeps it front of mind.

People tell them they should protest the oil companies etc. Only they do exactly that, but it never hits the news, it's dog bites postman stuff.

None of which is shifting the dial much.

And if they think it's important they can keep doing it anyway. Or they could just get Greeta to tweet Fat Donny, or one could bait the King into commenting, or...

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The defendants were prohibited from using terms such as “climate change” in their defence and so took to using the “consent” defence to give context to their actions.

The state over-reaching in order to crush protest is never “eminently sensible”.

Why has it crushed protest?

First the right to give context for their actions was removed from protesters when they were tried on public nuisance offences, now the recourse to a law from over 50 years ago has been removed. This is just another part of the criminalising of protest.
Did you know that more people were charged with rioting, which carries a sentence of up to ten years iirc, during the “kill the bill” protests in Bristol than had been for previous decades combined? It’s rather ironic that the bill in question was about increasing police powers and restricting the rights to protest.

Up to ten years has a nice flair for the dramatic

[I like neeps]

A few weeks back I was listening to Oh God, What Now? and they had some interesting insights into her as a character. Apparently, as contemporary Tory cabinet ministers go, she's actually fairly across her brief and intelligent, which means she has a better rep with civil servants tha most. However, she is quite awkward and unpersonable and, like many of them, reacts very poorly to being questioned. Which is extra hilarious because apparently she wants to make another tilt at the leadership and being party leader, even when in opposition, does tend to put one in the position of being questioned

Great podcast is On God, What Now. Started listening last month but it's really very good.

Just listened to the latest episode on this recommendation, very good.

Is it always right wing bashing or are they generally more balanced?

As swat says I don't think they bash the right wing as much as it's criticizing the Tory government who have become almost impossible to defend/make multiple errors per day/the UK is crumbling. And they love making fun of the telegraph....

They are sometimes slightly critical of Labour's lack of plans too and I'm interested to see how they critique Labour in power. But it's a centrist podcast so I assume they won't be as studs up and will struggle for content somewhat.

[Slick]

Great podcast is On God, What Now. Started listening last month but it's really very good.

Just listened to the latest episode on this recommendation, very good.

Is it always right wing bashing or are they generally more balanced?

As swat says I don't think they bash the right wing as much as it's criticizing the Tory government who have become almost impossible to defend/make multiple errors per day/the UK is crumbling. And they love making fun of the telegraph....

They are sometimes slightly critical of Labour's lack of plans too and I'm interested to see how they critique Labour in power. But it's a centrist podcast so I assume they won't be as studs up and will struggle for content somewhat.

Fair enough, from both of you, thanks.

This government deserve absolutely everything they get and I'm all for that. I'm just trying to be more conscious of not getting into echo chambers online. I really enjoyed it though so going to trawl through a few more.

[Tichtheid]

The article I linked to earlier is just the latest move from this government

Draconian new powers allow the police to shut down every form of effective protest. It’s a green light for even greater abuses.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... sts-police

As usual, Monbiot includes links to all of his sources in the text.

I'd like to see Labour commit to reversing these laws.

[Biffer]

Latest Yougov poll has the Tories on 19%, could leave them on thirty or fewer seats

[inactionman]

Latest Yougov poll has the Tories on 19%, could leave them on thirty or fewer seats

It's an odd feeling, being grateful to the Reform party. They've split the tory vote nicely.

[Biffer]

Latest Yougov poll has the Tories on 19%, could leave them on thirty or fewer seats

It's on odd feeling, being grateful to the Reform party. They've split the tory vote nicely.

Even if you bump them down 10% and give it all to the Tories, it’s a 200 seat majority. I don’t think that reform will poll that well in the actual election, I think they’ll be just under 10%. That could still have the Tories below 100 seats though.

[sturginho]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

[C T]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

[dpedin]

Latest Yougov poll has the Tories on 19%, could leave them on thirty or fewer seats

It's on odd feeling, being grateful to the Reform party. They've split the tory vote nicely.

Even if you bump them down 10% and give it all to the Tories, it’s a 200 seat majority. I don’t think that reform will poll that well in the actual election, I think they’ll be just under 10%. That could still have the Tories below 100 seats though.

I reckon the Reform Ltd will go all in at the GE and try to win as many votes as possible. They see this as their big big chance to scavenge at the dying corpse of the Tory Party and to transform it into a British version of the Republican Party post the GE defeat. They are desperate for the Tories to lose and lose badly and the only thing in their way of destroying the current tory party is their own ineptitude, narrow base and racist candidates, many of whom are being exposed now on Twitter for being utter cunts. They see a Reform/Conservative Party post GE being led by their winning team of Tice, Blonde Bumblecunt, Farage, JRM, Braverman, Patel, Truss et al and getting all the air time they need on GBabiesNews. There is enough of the right wing nutters, the likes of Clark, Jenkinson, Clark-Smith, Kruger, Longhi et al, the useless army of blackshirts, in the Tory Party to rally around a right wing coup to make it work and who will support whatever they do as they know this would be their only hope of ever getting back into political power. To be fair to them they are playing a long game well and have already hollowed out the Tories into a ramshackle, right wing shell of a Party led by a hopeless incompetent PM supported by a Cabinet filled with nutters and incompetents and who is all ready to shuffle off to US once he has lost the GE. Will the remaining one nation Tories be able to resurrect themselves into any semblance of a political party, will they fight to keep hold of the ghost of the Tory Party - hard to say given the lack of leadership to rally round. They know they have lost the party and they themselves have lost their fight to do anything and I suspect they will just give up and wander back to the shires and live out their lives as landowners or advisors to big businesses.

[sockwithaticket]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

After a long, long time of basically ignoring it I think we're still groping around in the dark to find balance. With increased levels of diagnosis for all sorts of things we're only just waking up to how much of an issue it's been in the past when things were just swept under the rug.

At the same time, there is also an epidemic of self-diagnosis of conditions like anxiety and ADHD.

'Your mental health is your responsibility' is quite vague, what do you think is meant by that? To me it means exactly things like recognising when your emotional state is consistently outside of what you would consider your norm and seeking counselling or having suspicions that your norm is not and has never been anyone else's and looking for some help in figuring out why that might be.

[sockwithaticket]

It's on odd feeling, being grateful to the Reform party. They've split the tory vote nicely.

Even if you bump them down 10% and give it all to the Tories, it’s a 200 seat majority. I don’t think that reform will poll that well in the actual election, I think they’ll be just under 10%. That could still have the Tories below 100 seats though.

I reckon the Reform Ltd will go all in at the GE and try to win as many votes as possible. They see this as their big big chance to scavenge at the dying corpse of the Tory Party and to transform it into a British version of the Republican Party post the GE defeat. They are desperate for the Tories to lose and lose badly and the only thing in their way of destroying the current tory party is their own ineptitude, narrow base and racist candidates, many of whom are being exposed now on Twitter for being utter cunts. They see a Reform/Conservative Party post GE being led by their winning team of Tice, Blonde Bumblecunt, Farage, JRM, Braverman, Patel, Truss et al and getting all the air time they need on GBabiesNews. There is enough of the right wing nutters, the likes of Clark, Jenkinson, Clark-Smith, Kruger, Longhi et al, the useless army of blackshirts, in the Tory Party to rally around a right wing coup to make it work and who will support whatever they do as they know this would be their only hope of ever getting back into political power. To be fair to them they are playing a long game well and have already hollowed out the Tories into a ramshackle, right wing shell of a Party led by a hopeless incompetent PM supported by a Cabinet filled with nutters and incompetents and who is all ready to shuffle off to US once he has lost the GE. Will the remaining one nation Tories be able to resurrect themselves into any semblance of a political party, will they fight to keep hold of the ghost of the Tory Party - hard to say given the lack of leadership to rally round. They know they have lost the party and they themselves have lost their fight to do anything and I suspect they will just give up and wander back to the shires and live out their lives as landowners or advisors to big businesses.

Reform don't have the resources to get anywhere. They've achieved little of note in the spate of by-elections, I doubt being spread more thinly in a general is going to help them. They can air some of the right's favourites on GBeebies all they like, barely anyone actually watches it.

[inactionman]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

After a long, long time of basically ignoring it I think we're still groping around in the dark to find balance. With increased levels of diagnosis for all sorts of things we're only just waking up to how much of an issue it's been in the past when things were just swept under the rug.

At the same time, there is also an epidemic of self-diagnosis of conditions like anxiety and ADHD.

Y'our mental health is your responsibility is quite vague', what do you think is meant by that? To me it means exactly things like recognising when your emotional state is consistently outside of what you would consider your norm and seeking counselling or having suspicions that your norm is not and has never been anyone else's and looking for some help in figuring out why that might be.

One thing that really doesn't help is the linking of support to condition.

To explain, we're trying to get some support for my infant daughter as she struggles a bit with some of the teaching approaches at school, and we've had advice from friends with kids of the same age to try to get her diagnosed with certain conditions as it unlocks a wide catalogue of measure,s funding, specialists etc.

I appreciate I'm not a medical doctor, but I can clearly see she does not have those conditions. She's a bog-standard, silly, utterly lovely, sometimes infuriating, persistently stubborn little girl who can struggle to focus when learning by rote. She needs some help to focus upon her reading, both us as parents and her teacher know this. She doesn't need a medical certificate to say she has a condition which might mean she struggles to focus on her reading.

When we make support conditional on condition, we're going to see a lot higher incidence of said condition.

[C T]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

After a long, long time of basically ignoring it I think we're still groping around in the dark to find balance. With increased levels of diagnosis for all sorts of things we're only just waking up to how much of an issue it's been in the past when things were just swept under the rug.

At the same time, there is also an epidemic of self-diagnosis of conditions like anxiety and ADHD.

Y'our mental health is your responsibility is quite vague', what do you think is meant by that? To me it means exactly things like recognising when your emotional state is consistently outside of what you would consider your norm and seeking counselling or having suspicions that your norm is not and has never been anyone else's and looking for some help in figuring out why that might be.

My view is very similar to what you've said.

I'd add a little, and that's about small things can make a big different. I'll give an extreme example to try and make the point.

Had a work colleague once who self-diagnosed as chronic fatigue, this particularly chimed with me because I have a close relative who suffers from chronic fatigue. Anyway, I know that this chap drank 3/4 cans of Monster a day and stayed up until the wee hours playing the Xbox. I might be completely wrong, but I reckon a few small lifestyle changes might have helped here.

Further to this I think things like going for a walk, taking up a hobby, cutting down on alcohol, reducing caffeine, etc. etc.

I'm not naïve enough to think that things like this will help everyone, but I genuinely think there is weight to it. The problem is sometimes it is difficult to suggest "small" things to someone at risk of accidentally belittling the problem.

[I like neeps]

The latest culture war bollocks coming from the Tories: mental health has gone "too far"

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

Agree C T.

Firstly, it is mostly our own responsibility, all the research there is suggests mindfulness and connection are key to feeling mentally well. Sadly, we live in the UK where loneliness is rising exponentially at a time public areas have been shut down/left to rot. Spending time with friends doing things you enjoy are key really. Physical activity, green spaces, useful work etc etc. We've medicalised a lot of issues that aren't medical.

Where we're going wrong:

Everything is so expensive currently. It reduces the time and resource people have for leisure time. Also, any study will show you money worries = poor mental health. See also, housing worries.

Collapsing public spaces - you won't meet people at church anymore and the associated community activities. And austerity has tried to shut everything else. Sports participation is declining across the board. Work from home etc where do you meet people?

You go to the Doctor and instead of expensive counselling or talking therapies you get given meds because doctors lack the time to act in another way. There's very little compelling evidence they work more than a placebo, but they do create an addiction.

Counselling/CBT have outrageous waiting times/cost. It's prohibitive.

The government have outsourced mental health care to charities who then run services to KPIs that are designed to ensure they keep getting govt contracts not to improving mental health. Furthermore to increase funding you need to increase awareness. It's great to increase awareness if you also create awareness of how to feel better. See above.

Tiktok and the internet are making kids think that their feelings are a mental health issue and not just a part of life. Prevelance inflation it's called.

Physical health is crap for many reasons and that's related to poor mental health too.

In short - people need more money, more connection with others, more knowledge on wellness strategies.

[Biffer]

I like that a conversation about the Reform party is mixed up with a conversation about mental health.

[Biffer]

In that YouGov poll, the Tories have less than 10% of under 50s.

[Slick]

This is an interesting topic, and I don't want to get dragged into the Tory culture wars. But I think there is a bit of truth in what is being said, like all good culture war topics.

My personal worry in this regard is that I sense some people are loosing the capacity to accepts feelings as part of the human condition. In my very simple world this used to be quite easy to demonstrate in language. For example if someone was sad, that was a usual emotion expected to be part of being human, if someone was depressed that was a mental health condition. Similar in a way to the term worry vs the term anxious.

I might be imagining things, but I hear the terms sad/worried being used almost never and depressed/anxious being used almost always.

What I'm trying to say is that as humans we will feel emotions which are not always a mental health condition. And I've got a slight concern, call it a feeling perhaps, that sometime we're loosing sight of that. I say this with the full knowledge that there are of course mental health conditions that are not this.

I also remember a friend of mine seeking counseling to help him deal with a breakup, and he was told one thing that particularly stuck with him. That was "Your mental health is your responsibility". Again, I'm sure this isn't a one size fits all approach, but he certainly took it as a good reminder to look after his own mental health.

After a long, long time of basically ignoring it I think we're still groping around in the dark to find balance. With increased levels of diagnosis for all sorts of things we're only just waking up to how much of an issue it's been in the past when things were just swept under the rug.

At the same time, there is also an epidemic of self-diagnosis of conditions like anxiety and ADHD.

Y'our mental health is your responsibility is quite vague', what do you think is meant by that? To me it means exactly things like recognising when your emotional state is consistently outside of what you would consider your norm and seeking counselling or having suspicions that your norm is not and has never been anyone else's and looking for some help in figuring out why that might be.

My view is very similar to what you've said.

I'd add a little, and that's about small things can make a big different. I'll give an extreme example to try and make the point.

Had a work colleague once who self-diagnosed as chronic fatigue, this particularly chimed with me because I have a close relative who suffers from chronic fatigue. Anyway, I know that this chap drank 3/4 cans of Monster a day and stayed up until the wee hours playing the Xbox. I might be completely wrong, but I reckon a few small lifestyle changes might have helped here.

Further to this I think things like going for a walk, taking up a hobby, cutting down on alcohol, reducing caffeine, etc. etc.

I'm not naïve enough to think that things like this will help everyone, but I genuinely think there is weight to it. The problem is sometimes it is difficult to suggest "small" things to someone at risk of accidentally belittling the problem.

There is definitely a bit of both.

The wild swimming group I'm part of was ostensibly set up as a mens mental health group, promoting men getting together, doing something that will help their mental health and more importantly talking openly. I didn't join the group because of any particular mental health issues - it's on my doorstep and a great bunch of guys - but I have to say that getting into water with a group of guys who you can be completely open with, no judgement, no piss taking about mental or physical attributes and essentially a (can't believe I'm going to say this) a "safe space" for men, has been pretty transformational. I'm pretty sure I just have the normal ups and downs of life, but being able to just have a chat when it feels like it's getting a bit much is amazing. I would never have even posted about this a couple of years ago never mind talked opening about it.

The fact is that 75% of suicides in Scotland are men, but until relatively recently there was pretty much no where to go or even discuss it.

The flip side is there are quite a few folk there who just need a kick up the arse.