Jump to content
Tywin Manderly

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

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The fact that Chaircat (Tory) and HoI (no comment needed) are the ones saying Blair is correct about the direction the Labour Party should be taking is rather telling, no? 

Actually there is nothing I'd like more than an effective Labour party that actually managed to challenge the government and was a viable alternative. 

I completely disagree with Blair on a few things, Brexit for one, but here he is absolutely correct. It's utterly embarrassing at a time where Labour has been shown to be out of touch and lost it's red wall to the tories, that instead of any level of self examination, it's doubling down. If any of the candidates actually believe Trans rights is what will win them an election then we will be looking at a Tory government for the next century!

Blair might be hated, but he knows how to win election far more than any of the baby corbynistas

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If any of the candidates actually believe Trans rights is what will win them an election then we will be looking at a Tory government for the next century!
 

It’s not going to lose them the election either, though, is it, so why not do the right thing instead of pandering to TERFs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maltaran said:

It’s not going to lose them the election either, though, is it, so why not do the right thing instead of pandering to TERFs?

Won’t it? All it’s doing is confirming everything people believe about the Labour Party. Not to mention not everyone agrees with their position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, mormont said:

Policy is a distant third on the list in this survey.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/23/their-own-words-why-voters-abandoned-labour

The fact is, the Labour manifesto was hardly discussed during the election, aside from the Brexit policy. The vast majority of coverage was about Corbyn, antisemitism, and Brexit.

Blair can't be regarded as a credible critic on this: his religious views aside, his use of the hackneyed 'all sorts of difficult issues to resolve first' excuse for chucking trans people under the bus is an absolute hallmark of anti-trans commenters.

Sure, you can take this position. And it's the morally sound one. However, all of the issues are still there in some shape or form - Brexit to a lesser extent, but I will get to that later.

We can agree on the magnitude of Labour's losses at the last GE. You named the top three reasons.

Corbyn: While that feckless old Geezer is on his way out, his people are still there and are the ones pulling the levers, and thus have are decissive say on the future of the party.

Antisemitism: Also not really resolved. McDonnel gave an excellent example of the tone deafness of the current leadership on that issue when he compared Assange to Captain Dreyfus.

Brexit: Yes, that's ben somewhat resolved for the moment. However, there the same questions pop up in a different shape and form. What should the future relationship look like (what compromises is Labour willing to make for what degree of SM access), will Labour be championing eventually rejoining the EU after things go teats up in Brexitania (which seems to be heading for a no-deal in January).

With all those political construction sites being open, it feels tactically a bit unwise to make trans rights your big issue of the day right now. I mean that's probably the equivalent of standing in front of your house after bus crashed thru the wall and contemplate about the colour of the faucets. Sure it matters, but I would think there are just more urgent things that needs to be sorted. Besides, I don't think transgender rights are that controversial among Labour voters (at least I hope they are not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Won’t it? All it’s doing is confirming everything people believe about the Labour Party. Not to mention not everyone agrees with their position.

I sincerely doubt there are people who will think “Well, I prefer their economic and social policies a lot more than what the Tories are offering, but I’m not going to vote for them because they oppose bigotry”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

I sincerely doubt there are people who will think “Well, I prefer their economic and social policies a lot more than what the Tories are offering, but I’m not going to vote for them because they oppose bigotry”.

They might think ‘oh yeah the Labour Party really has been taken over by a bunch of middle class liberal reactionaries, who are more concerned with saying babies are born without a sex, and talking about which prison rapists will go to, than demonstrating how they will help sort out problems that I’m facing’

 

Edited by Heartofice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

They might think ‘oh yeah the Labour Party really has been taken over by a bunch of middle class liberal reactionaries, who are more concerned with saying babies are born without a sex, and talking about which prison rapists will go to, than demonstrating how they will help sort out problems that I’m facing’

 

But in that case the problem isn’t Labour supporting trans rights, it’s the messaging going wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 6:30 AM, Which Tyler said:

Especially with the Tory definition of "low-skilled" often meaning "3 year degree + 2 year practical experience"

Honestly it doesn't matter. Brexit was done out of the ”logic” of it being necessary to preserve British culture from the onslaught of ”unchecked” immigration. Yes, I agree most of it’s support was just xenophobia.

If someone could give a detailed explanation on how Eastern Europeans were changing British culture in substantial ways-other than a lot of them being there, I’m open to hear it of course. 

But in any case economy hurting as result of it, was always something plenty/most Brexit supporters would be willing to put up with.

To protect their culture from eastern Europeans who are doing...something derail tremendously probably. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Won’t it? All it’s doing is confirming everything people believe about the Labour Party. Not to mention not everyone agrees with their position.

Yeah, and not everyone agrees with their opposition’s position on this subject.

This is a rather silly point to bring up, given it could literally be said of any political position ever.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

They might think ‘oh yeah the Labour Party really has been taken over by a bunch of middle class liberal reactionaries, who are more concerned with saying babies are born without a sex, and talking about which prison rapists will go to, than demonstrating how they will help sort out problems that I’m facing’

 

Meh, some transphobic reactionaries may do that . The sentiment is especially galling given so many trans people fall below the poverty line, and deal with homelessness. 

They also are more likely to be beaten, raped, and ostracized. 

Not a very privileged group of people  were talking about here. 

Though I seriously doubt this particular issue will get that many to ignore all other policies that have been put forth in terms of economics. 

It's not a ”losing” issue than supporting gay-marriage is in the Uk. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/07/03/majority-uk-support-transgender-lgbt-relationships-education/amp/

Most of the UK does not oppose trans rights in general. 

Though I am getting strong you agree with the sentiments expressed by transphobes here. 

That Labor shouldn't drop it's support for trans rights not just because it's some losing issue.  

But because trans rights themselves shouldn't be protected, or seen as a thing.

If not and you do suppose trans rights, please, I'm willing to apologize. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

With all those political construction sites being open, it feels tactically a bit unwise to make trans rights your big issue of the day right now.

OK. But since that is a straw man, I'm not seeing your point.

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

I mean that's probably the equivalent of standing in front of your house after bus crashed thru the wall and contemplate about the colour of the faucets.

If you're trans - and I guarantee you multiple people reading this thread are, or have family members and friends who are - this is actually offensive.

Trans people are being demonised in the press, harangued and harassed and assaulted and public figures like Blair are happy to provide a smokescreen with all these 'big questions to be resolved first' (somehow, how we stop people outing, harassing and beating up trans people never seems to qualify as one of those 'big questions').

This is not a 'colour of the faucets' issue. This is an urgent issue for trans people. Nobody is suggesting it should be used tactically to win votes. Nobody is suggesting it should be the Labour party's big issue or defining cultural difference. They're suggesting the Labour party should publicly condemn bigotry and harassment. If only it had done a bit more of that sooner re: antisemitism, instead of choosing as Corbyn did to grapple publicly with the 'big questions' there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maltaran said:

I sincerely doubt there are people who will think “Well, I prefer their economic and social policies a lot more than what the Tories are offering, but I’m not going to vote for them because they oppose bigotry”.

This is somewhat naïve, not least perhaps because the voters in question wouldn't see this as bigotry. 

Anyway, the flaw in your reasoning seems to be this:

Many voters form an impression of a party, often for reasons they can't always put into words and this then colours how they interpret their policies. For example, polling in the early 2000s showed William Hague's policies were very popular as long as voters were not told they were Tory policies; as soon as they were told the popularity dropped like a stone.

The concern is not that anyone will make that explicit calculation you outline (or hint at, perhaps) but that Labour will appear ever more distant in its concerns from that part of its old heartland it needs to win back - and it seems rather distant already.  

 

Edited by Chaircat Meow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um another thing-trans people are still people. They still need adequate healthcare, they still need jobs(especially when so many are homeless), they still competent LE to respond to threats in their community.

It is not reasonable for anyone to see Labour taking a progressive stance on protecting their rights as sign that they don't care about the troubles affecting cisgenders. 

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

This is somewhat naïve, not least perhaps because the voters in question wouldn't see this as bigotry. 

Anyway, the flaw in your reasoning seems to be this:

Many voters form an impression of a party, often for reasons they can't always put into words and this then colours how they interpret their policies. For example, polling in the early 2000s showed William Hague's policies were very popular as long as voters were not told they were Tory policies; as soon as they were told the popularity dropped like a stone.

The concern is not that anyone will make that explicit calculation you outline (or hint at, perhaps) but that Labour will appear ever more distant in its concerns from that part of its old heartland it needs to win back - and it seems rather distant already.  

 

But there hasn't been any evidence that taking a stance of ”lets protect trans rights!” is a losing position for a party to hold. It certainly should not be the only/central position of Labour but no one is putting forward that proposition.
Now, it's not going to be the issue that will definitely determine the winner of an election.

Listen, I know not every Uber-progressive position should be adopted if a party desires to win.

 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mormont said:

If you're trans - and I guarantee you multiple people reading this thread are, or have family members and friends who are - this is actually offensive.

Fair enough, and I hereby apologize to any trans person who took offense in that comparission.

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Trans people are being demonised in the press, harangued and harassed and assaulted and public figures like Blair are happy to provide a smokescreen with all these 'big questions to be resolved first' (somehow, how we stop people outing, harassing and beating up trans people never seems to qualify as one of those 'big questions').

Are they? I don't read enough British media to tell one way or another. Bubble problems, when your primary British news site is the Guardian. Anyway, I am getting sidetracked here. So I just accept your word for it. Also, is assaulting trans people really a thing in Britain?

4 hours ago, mormont said:

They're suggesting the Labour party should publicly condemn bigotry and harassment. If only it had done a bit more of that sooner re: antisemitism, instead of choosing as Corbyn did to grapple publicly with the 'big questions' there. 

Two part response to that. As that statement contains (in)actions.

Yes, Labour should condemn bigotry and harassment. But do you need to do so with that big pledge? Like I said before, the whole transphobia really has more of a right wing vibe to it (can't put it any better right now, if I find a word I will edit the post). So in that sense the pledge feels a bit like overshooting, while not being willing to engage in the more prevalent Labour internal problems (like anti-semitism).

What Corbyn did or didn't do, was less him engaging in active anti-semitism (as much as the poitical right liked to portray it), it was him enjoying his political blind spot. He did not address anti-semitism as a problem/issue on its own. He instead tried to inbed it in his more global/big messaging, assuming it would just go away/resolve itself. That allowed that problem to foster and eat away at Labour, and get to a critical point (thus the faucet analogy). Well, maybe a pledge is not such a bad idea to deal with any potential problem with transphobia before it gets to a critical stage within Labour.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It is not reasonable for anyone to see Labour taking a progressive stance on protecting their rights as sign that they don't care about the troubles affecting cisgenders. 

But there hasn't been any evidence that taking a stance of ”lets protect trans rights!” is a losing position for a party to hold. It certainly should not be the only/central position of Labour but no one is putting forward that proposition.
Now, it's not going to be the issue that will definitely determine the winner of an election.

It's not reasonable but still very likely.

It is another stick about how out of touch with the issues of their traditional heartlands they are becoming. And the right wing press will use it to full effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maltaran said:

But in that case the problem isn’t Labour supporting trans rights, it’s the messaging going wrong.

The messaging always seems to go wrong for Labour.  Bringing it back to Blairs point, if Labour wants to have a culture war, then pitting 'trans rights' against 'immigration' as talking points is a no contest. Keep your messaging simple, keep it consistent and help people understand what you represent and who you represent.

Right now Labour is doing nothing to dispel the notion that it is a party that represents students and middle class Londoners. The more airtime it gives to discussing the intracises of 'trans rights' the less time it has to talk about issues that most people feel matter, and the more the party looks completely out of touch. 

If Labour want to do some good then they need to get elected first, right now they don't appear to understand how to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Are they? I don't read enough British media to tell one way or another. Bubble problems, when your primary British news site is the Guardian. Anyway, I am getting sidetracked here. So I just accept your word for it. Also, is assaulting trans people really a thing in Britain?

Um, it is. And it's a thing in your country too. If you don't realise this then I'm afraid you probably are in a bubble. Which is a thing that can happen to any of us, and as long as we're willing to realise it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hate-crimes-england-wales-lgbt-rise-anti-gay-transgender-attacks-a9156291.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48756370

https://www.dw.com/en/attacks-on-lgbt-people-increase-in-germany/a-50598761

8 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Two part response to that. As that statement contains (in)actions.

Yes, Labour should condemn bigotry and harassment. But do you need to do so with that big pledge? Like I said before, the whole transphobia really has more of a right wing vibe to it (can't put it any better right now, if I find a word I will edit the post). So in that sense the pledge feels a bit like overshooting, while not being willing to engage in the more prevalent Labour internal problems (like anti-semitism).

Again, you may be in a bubble here.

First of all, this isn't a 'big pledge' in the sense that anyone is treating it as something that should be the primary focus of the party. That, as noted, is a straw man set up by Blair. Instead, two of four candidates have signed a pledge to expel transphobic members. This is no different than when all four of them signed a pledge to expel antisemitic members.

Like antisemitism, transphobia is a form of bigotry finding ground on the left, as bigots are hijacking feminist campaigns with pseudoscientific arguments about biological essentialism and bogus concerns about men invading women's spaces. So it is a live issue in the Labour party.

If anyone can explain to me why antisemitism in the Labour party is rightly recognised as a scourge that the next leader must pledge to tackle, but why doing the same with transphobia is mere chattering class trivia that must be put aside for the sake of winning elections, without essentially saying 'tough luck trans people, the tabloids don't care', please do set that argument out. Certainly Blair, the very avatar of the chattering classes but who for some reason is now attempting to speak for salt-of-the-earth working class voters, has not done so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mormont said:

transphobia is a form of bigotry finding ground on the left, as bigots are hijacking feminist campaigns with pseudoscientific arguments about biological essentialism and bogus concerns about men invading women's spaces. So it is a live issue in the Labour party.

Ah, yes one might think  the biggest threats to women's rights are the people who’d strip them of their reproductive rights, those who'd slut-shame them etc But Nope Its Trans people. 

Also, the discussions almost never center around transmen going into men spaces. 

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The more airtime it gives to discussing the intracises of 'trans rights' the less time it has to talk about issues that most people feel matter, and the more the party looks completely out of touch. 

Again you do understand a lot of the issues trans people face in their life do matter to cisgenders right?

Homelessness, trouble in terms of healthcare, finding employment. 

You can talk about one issue and not detract from the significance of the other.

Talking about combating anti-Semitism, racism, or homophobia in one’s platform doesn't they can't then talk about workers rights in general.

And Trans rights are something most people in the UK matter.

At least according to polls. 

Talking about protecting  them is not a losing venture. 

Which you're opposed to all together; any talk of this particular issue will suddenly get loads of people to ignore all economic/social policies labor has put forth is bad to any degree. 

I notice the quote marks around ’trans rights’ I cannot help but inquire if you simply do not feel others should recognize those as a real thing.

That your issue with Labour stating a progressive stance on this issue in any capacity, isn't just about concerns about it's electoral prospect.

That Labour should drop it's stance is invalid in it of itself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of this discussion boils down to the same thing as other political discussions: "I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Ah, yes one might think  the biggest threats to women's rights are the people who’d strip them of their reproductive rights, those who'd slut-shame them etc But Nope Its Trans people. 

Also, the discussions almost never center around transmen going into men spaces. 

Again you do understand a lot of the issues trans people face in their life do matter to cisgenders right?

Homelessness, trouble in terms of healthcare, finding employment. 

You can talk about one issue and not detract from the significance of the other.

Talking about combating anti-Semitism, racism, or homophobia in one’s platform doesn't they can't then talk about workers rights in general.

And Trans rights are something most people in the UK matter.

At least according to polls. 

 

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've seen polling on support for trans rights and yes, numbers are very supportive for it (as a vague question on the issue). 

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. 

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. 

Quote

I notice the quote marks around ’trans rights’ I cannot help but inquire if you simply do not feel others should recognize those as a real thing.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

So much of this discussion boils down to the same thing as other political discussions: "I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people."

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mormont said:

If anyone can explain to me why antisemitism in the Labour party is rightly recognised as a scourge that the next leader must pledge to tackle,

I’ve started following Medialens on Twitter, I’d be interested to know your (or anyone else’s) thoughts on there views on antisemitism in the Labour Party:

https://www.medialens.org/2019/reopening-auschwitz-the-conspiracy-to-stop-corbyn/

I genuinely don’t know what to believe on it, it’s just something I’ve been reading. To be honest, I’m not sure how many other UK citizens feel the same way, but it’s difficult to get a read on it when I have such little experience with antisemitism, or with Jewish people at all. Maybe I just don’t visit the right areas, or don’t run in the right circles. So the issue with the Labour Party seems so abstract, a group of people hate a group of people I’ve so little knowledge of, and so I have no idea what really drives antisemitism or where people pick up these ideas. Which ultimately means, if I get told they have a problem with it, and can only say ‘OK’. I have no means to judge whether it’s true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×