UK Politics: Unboldy Go There Where No Country Has Gone Before

[mormont]

The issue is threefold:

1. As with many manifestations of prejudice, some people on the left don't see their views as prejudiced and so look for alternative explanations eg media conspiracies.

2. Many on the left, this writer among them, were deeply invested in the success of Corbyn's leadership and look for alternative explanations for its failure.

3. There genuinely was some bad faith media hype over antisemitism. The highlighted quotes are all examples of that. But note the sleight of hand. From 'these are ridiculous things to say' the author moves smoothly to 'Corbyn did everything he could to distance himself from antisemitism'.

That's simply not true. It's true that there was overhyped, unfair criticism of Corbyn on this issue. It's true that there is also antisemitisim in other parties. It's true that Corbyn himself is, so far as anyone can tell, not an antisemite. But it's true also that he tolerated some antisemitic views, either in the mistaken belief that they were not antisemitic or because he considered it more important to allow a free-for-all on criticism of Israel as a political entity. And it's true also that when confronted with antisemitism, Corbyn was inconsistent, sometimes slow to act, and always appeared reluctant to put his foot down, almost being pushed into doing so by the press or others in the party. And that allowed the more absurd claims to gain credibility. He handled this area very badly and he did so because of his political sympathies.

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The issue here is not about whether support trans rights or not, which is where you seemed to be getting stuck. It's about signalling to the electorate and putting forward an image of who the party is. The Labour party already has a massive issue with it's appearance, it's lost a lot of it's traditional working class support and most of it's gains have come from areas like London. It's going to need to connect with it's traditional base more if it hopes to win an election any time soon. But so far it seems more concerned with discussing issues that don't connect with most people as a priority

You seem to be saying that Labour shouldn’t support trans rights because you think it sends a bad message, when surely the correct thing for Labour to do is still support trans rights but get better at controlling their messaging.

[DanteGabriel]

50 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Not quite. it's more, you cant help the people that need help the most if you dont get elected because you focus on stuff that might be very important, but is not going to do you any good at the polls. 

Nobody here, from what I can tell, has said fighting for trans right is a bad thing, and most people accept that the trans community have a thoroughly horrendous time in all areas of their lives. 

I've seen the "let's not advocate too hard for marginalized group X because it'll scare the general public and we have to get elected to help them" argument morph almost instantly into "let's not work too hard to help marginalized group X now that we're in power because it'll scare the general public and we need to get re-elected." At some point the party that purports to stand for the powerless needs to actually do so.

[Heartofice]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I've seen the "let's not advocate too hard for marginalized group X because it'll scare the general public and we have to get elected to help them" argument morph almost instantly into "let's not work too hard to help marginalized group X now that we're in power because it'll scare the general public and we need to get re-elected." At some point the party that purports to stand for the powerless needs to actually do so.

To get elected you have to stand for the people who will vote you into power. 

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

To get elected you have to stand for the people who will vote you into power. 

Who are these people who would vote for Labour except if they spend too much time talking about protecting the rights of trans people? No doubt people with as firm a sense of what "real British culture" is as you have, eh?

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Who are these people who would vote for Labour except if they spend too much time talking about protecting the rights of trans people? No doubt people with as firm a sense of what "real British culture" is as you have, eh?

Honestly, I'm from a very working class area. And almost everyone I went to school with still has the whole 'labour is for the black lesbian dwarves' nonsense stereotype as an actual thing they beleive. The loony left attack works, otherwise the right wouldn't use it. The right wing press wont report that labour are legislating to protect trans people from physical or emotional attacks or from discriminatory working practices. But they will carry the story of the small company that was forced to install a seperate changing facility at huge cost for their one staff member of the trans community. 

Labour dont have to go full on Blair to win, but they have to find a strong clear message that appeals to their traditional heartlands and the new labour vote. I dont think trans people would care if they got legislation that protected and supported them, whether or not it was sung from the rooftops or snuck in the backdoor. 

Edit, the above in bold. I have no idea how they feel, so ignore that last bit. 

 

[Denvek]

I don't see that the two sides of this argument are mutually contradictory.

1. Labour should support trans rights. As the progressive party that claims to be against bigotry, it's simply the right thing to do. It'll provoke a loud reaction from the culture-war-conservatives, but they'd always be able to find something Labour are doing to be angry about, so their opinions shouldn't really factor into a progressive party choosing to support a progressive policy that will significantly improve the lives of the people it affects.

2. A significant part of the people Labour need to win to win an election aren't going to care what Labour's stance on trans rights is. But all that means is that Labour also need other policies that appeal to the people who don't see themselves as being affected one way or the other by trans rights policies.

As has been said above, it's a messaging issue. Culture-war-conservatives might point to this as a reason why "Labour doesn't care about their traditional voters any more" and other such BS - Labour need to be able to point to other policies that are going to win back those voters, but not at the expense of doing the right thing on this issue.

Edited: I think I'm using different words to say much the same thing as BFC just did

[BigFatCoward]

Another perceived problem is going. Dianne Abbott is stepping down from front bench.

She was treated disgracefully by the press. That being said, knowing she was a liability she should have gone earlier. 

[DanteGabriel]

45 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Honestly, I'm from a very working class area. And almost everyone I went to school with still has the whole 'labour is for the black lesbian dwarves' nonsense stereotype as an actual thing they beleive. The loony left attack works, otherwise the right wouldn't use it. The right wing press wont report that labour are legislating to protect trans people from physical or emotional attacks or from discriminatory working practices. But they will carry the story of the small company that was forced to install a seperate changing facility at huge cost for their one staff member of the trans community. 

Labour dont have to go full on Blair to win, but they have to find a strong clear message that appeals to their traditional heartlands and the new labour vote. I dont think trans people would care if they got legislation that protected and supported them, whether or not it was sung from the rooftops or snuck in the backdoor. 

 

I suspect no matter how skillfully Labour crafts good messages, working class voters will keep falling for the latest social wedge issue that the right wing uses to distract from creeping fascism and corporate capture of government. There's always going to be some marginalized group who serves as the right wing's bogeyman. It was gay people twenty years ago, black people before that. I don't have a solution except getting working class white people to stop voting out of fear and loathing, but I know it's apparently too much to hope for.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The mistake you are making here, is confusing support for trans people, with people basing voting decisions on a party's stance on trans rights.

I have not. 

I’ve been very clear that I see this is not strong winning, or losing issue electorally.

My position is that Labour having a progressive policy in regards to trans people won't lose or win them much.

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

But does it come close to being in any way relevant to the issues the UK electorate base voting decisions on? Nope. Compared to the economy, jobs, crime, the NHS, security etc it's barely mentioned. 

Yes, it's barely mentioned.

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The issue here is not about whether support trans rights or not, which is where you seemed to be getting stuck.

Please, just give a yes or no. Do you see trans rights as something that should be recognized?

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Did you also notice I put quote marks around immigration as well? How does that help your theories? Please cut out the accusations.

Meh fair enough in regards to the quotation marks. I've chiefly stated I would apologize if I misconstrued your stance on trans-rights. I feel I still must reiterate my earlier question.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

My position is that Labour having a progressive policy in regards to trans people won't lose or win them much.

And you are right. It will have little effect on its own. But its not isolated. The party is already seen as the party of the liberal londoners, and the more the Labour candidates spend their time discussing these things and telling everyone how concerned they are, and the more that is met with a big fat shrug from the populace, the more they will just reaffirm that image.  It's not complex.

11 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Please, just give a yes or no. Do you see trans rights as something that should be recognized?

Yes. Not that it is any of your business.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Honestly, I'm from a very working class area. And almost everyone I went to school with still has the whole 'labour is for the black lesbian dwarves'

So stop any discussion on any issue that doesn't appear to specifically harm Christian white-heterosexual(men)?
Should Labour drop it's progressive stance on Same-relations, and fully embrace homophobia, and antisemitism not being a big deal?
 

Also(yes I know this won't be helped by complaint), this seems to be identity politics at it's worst.
People feeling Labor can't possibly empathize with none-trans people’s issues just because the party has a progressive stance in regards to them. 

To be clear I'm not accusing you of this. 
 

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Labour dont have to go full on Blair to win, but they have to find a strong clear message that appeals to their traditional heartlands and the new labour vote. I dont think trans people would care if they got legislation that protected and supported them, whether or not it was sung from the rooftops or snuck in the backdoor. 

Yes, but having public support from Labour would probably help ensure when/if they actually get into power they do something.

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not that it is any of your business.

Apologies then. 

[mormont]

27 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Apologies then. 

There's no need to apologise. While we're all entitled to privacy, it's perfectly reasonable when someone inserts themselves into such a discussion to ask where they actually stand on the relevant issues. If they don't want to divulge that, they can say so.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

There's no need to apologise. While we're all entitled to privacy, it's perfectly reasonable when someone inserts themselves into such a discussion to ask where they actually stand on the relevant issues. If they don't want to divulge that, they can say so.

Asking and making insinuations is not the same thing.

[Bael's Bastard]

Corbyn is absolutely a Jew-hater. Nearly 90% of British Jews believe him to be an antisemite, and anyone who wants to make excuses for that can fuck right off.

[BigFatCoward]

10 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Corbyn is absolutely a Jew-hater. Nearly 90% of British Jews believe him to be an antisemite, and anyone who wants to make excuses for that can fuck right off.

I'm not sure that people believing something makes it so. 52% of people believed that the EU wanted us to have straight bananas and that a different passport colour would improve their lives enormously. 

[Bael's Bastard]

23 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I'm not sure that people believing something makes it so. 52% of people believed that the EU wanted us to have straight bananas and that a different passport colour would improve their lives enormously. 

The fact that almost the entire Jewish population of England believes Corbyn to be an antisemite, based on his own statements and actions, can't be so flippantly dismissed as you have attempted. A minority knows better than anyone who hates and is against them. Jews certainly do.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Bael's Bastard said:

The fact that almost the entire Jewish population of England believes Corbyn to be an antisemite, based on his own statements and actions, can't be so flippantly dismissed as you have attempted. A minority knows better than anyone who hates and is against them. Jews certainly do.

Do you have any sources for this claim? Anytime someone positions themselves as knowing what Jews or any other minority group believe as some kind of bloc, it gets my hackles up.

[Bael's Bastard]

49 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Do you have any sources for this claim? Anytime someone positions themselves as knowing what Jews or any other minority group believe as some kind of bloc, it gets my hackles up.

You must not know many Jews, as British Jews were very vocal about their concerns about Corbyn and his antisemitism leading up to the elections.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/more-than-85-per-cent-of-british-jews-think-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-1.469654

https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

You must not know many Jews, as British Jews were very vocal about their concerns about Corbyn and his antisemitism leading up to the elections.

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/more-than-85-per-cent-of-british-jews-think-jeremy-corbyn-is-antisemitic-1.469654

https://www.survation.com/new-polling-of-british-jews-shows-tensions-remain-strong-between-labour-and-the-british-jewish-community/

Oh get over yourself. I asked for a citation to back up a strong claim. No need to be so condescending. I won't question your position as Spokesman of the Jews any more, okay?