UK Politics - We Don’t Want to See Your Papers, Please

[Liffguard]

Aside from the fact that standing against transphobia is just the right thing to do on its own merits, there's also the larger picture.

Transphobia is being deliberately used as a wedge issue. Give ground on trans rights and gay rights will be next in the crosshairs, then womens' rights and so on down the line. It's no surprise that much of the language being deployed against trans people today is lifted almost verbatim from anti-gay language from the eighties and nineties.

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

Labour’s left are more interested in getting rid of Starmer than Boris I think.

Aside from all the other comments made since this post that I agree with, this is pretty hilarious considering how desperate Labour's right was to get rid of Corbyn. If Corbyn failed to handle a media that were always going to be hostile, then Starmer has failed to repair any of the divisions in the party. 

[dog-days]

Is it right that Andy McDonald wanted to raise the minimum wage to £15.00/h from £8.91? That's a huge increase. 

Even to me (lefty, voted Corbyn, wants the abolition of private schools and massive rises in inheritance tax), that seems overly optimistic, and not a policy that would gain any traction with the voters. 

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

He can't get rid of BJ without getting rid of them though. Fucking Blyth went tory, Blyth! The party is unelectable while they remain so committed to bullshit causes like cervixgate. 

Putting aside any talk about the trans issue itself, the reason stuff like this comes up is because it really illustrates where elements on the left are incapable of having sensible conversations on certain issues and back themselves into positions that are nonsensical for the sake of ideology. It’s an easy stick to beat Starmer with, but luckily for him he’s found a lot of even easier sticks for the opposition 

[Derfel Cadarn]

https://metro.co.uk/2021/09/27/fuel-activist-is-furious-after-woke-trolls-list-his-home-as-a-petrol-station-15324615/
 

Low price fuel campaigner trolled by ‘woke trolls’ who listed his house on Google maps as a BP petrol station.

[BigFatCoward]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

None of those places give a shit about this issue, and hardly any of those voters will even be aware of it. Those that are, and care, were never going to vote for Starmer under any circumstances.

There's being realistic and there's selling out vulnerable people. Never mistake the two.

I literally said 'or at least it's an irrelevance' you quoted it FFS. 

You and I know very different working class people. The ones I know hate gender identity politics. And they don't fall on the side of the argument Starmer does. 

It makes them seem so fucking out of touch when they are talking about an issue which almost without exception doesn't affect their core vote (because most don't even know a trans person as anyone who was trans would get the fuck out of the backward towns that most of these people live in).

You can't help any marginalised group from the sidelines, I'm so sick of us losing and being right, I just want to win then shove their faces in the dirt. And I'm happy for us to do whatever we have to to achieve that. 

 

 

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Aside from all the other comments made since this post that I agree with, this is pretty hilarious considering how desperate Labour's right was to get rid of Corbyn. If Corbyn failed to handle a media that were always going to be hostile, then Starmer has failed to repair any of the divisions in the party. 

And that was idiotic then, too. I would have hoped that the party had learned its lesson. I’d much prefer it if we gave the leader a chance at an election before trying to remove them. Neither side is helping the cause by trying to damage the leader’s credibility before they’ve even reached the election campaign.

Corbyn lost two elections in a row, the second being far worse than the first. Time then for his supporters to have some humility and acknowledge that change is needed, not whinge from the sidelines and ask Bernie Sanders(!) how to make the party leader listen to them.

Should Starmer have started the conference with a rule change? No, that was stupid, but let’s try and keep an eye on the big picture.

As for the transphobia thing, it was just thoroughly depressing to see even Starmer’s very lukewarm criticism get a nasty response on Twitter, including from the health secretary.

[mormont]

49 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

And I'm happy for us to do whatever we have to to achieve that. 

Easily said when you're not the one paying the price.

I agree you can't help marginalised people without power. But that isn't an excuse for refusing to stand up for them, for helping the other side hurt them. If Starmer hadn't responded as he did, that's what he would have been doing.

Yeah, most working class people I know don't care, though to be fair, the ones I know personally mostly have experience of dealing with out trans people, because they mostly work at a university, one where trans people feel safe enough to come out. And it turns out that working alongside trans people and knowing them as people is enough to turn most people's attitudes around, just the same as with any other marginalised group.

But the point is not that all working class people are relaxed about this - it's that this isn't the reason those constituencies went Tory and it's not the way to get them to turn Labour again. Voters for whom this is an important enough issue to decide their vote are not likely Labour voters and mostly never were. That's not to say that there aren't likely Labour voters who have anti-trans views: but it isn't a vote-deciding issue for them.

And in the end, there's no form of bigotry that's worth tolerating for votes.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

3 hours ago, dog-days said:

Is it right that Andy McDonald wanted to raise the minimum wage to £15.00/h from £8.91? That's a huge increase. 

Even to me (lefty, voted Corbyn, wants the abolition of private schools and massive rises in inheritance tax), that seems overly optimistic, and not a policy that would gain any traction with the voters. 

Agreed, and that’s not going away with his departure either: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58713344

[BigFatCoward]

 Dbl post

[DaveSumm]

57 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

It makes them seem so fucking out of touch when they are talking about an issue which almost without exception doesn't affect their core vote (because most don't even know a trans person as anyone who was trans would get the fuck out of the backward towns that most of these people live in).

Do they want to be talking about it though? Or has this been forced on them by Rosie Duffield’s comments? I assume the ideal path for any politician is ‘appear to be pro-trans rights but never get caught in an interview being asked directly if only women have cervixes’; it’s a lose-lose situation. Seems that Starmer is trying to put this to bed as quickly as possible and move onto other, vote-winning policies.

[Soylent Brown]

I'll never understand why half of Labour members would prefer an actual Tory in power to their own 'fake Tory'.

If elections were boxing matches, the Tories would barely have to leave their own corner before Labour hit the floor, having delivered hammer-blow after hammer-blow to their own genitals.

[BigFatCoward]

4 minutes ago, mormont said:

Easily said when you're not the one paying the price.

 

You think the trans community is better off under a tory government or Labour one? 

For me that is all that matters. Do what the tories do, lie you tits off for votes and do what you want when in power.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

You and I know very different working class people. The ones I know hate gender identity politics. And they don't fall on the side of the argument Starmer does. 

The thing I absolutely fucking hate about this line is that its the TERFs that make every conversation about this shit. We just want to be safe, have access to the medical treatment we need the same as everybody else, and be able to use the appropriate facilities where possible. They're the ones suing the NHS to deny us treatment, hijacking every conversation to make it about us, they're utterly deranged and yet somehow the same thing always happens when bigotries are discussed - the people targeted by it and defending themselves get treated like the problem, like the ones making the noise.

13 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You think the trans community is better off under a tory government or Labour one? 

For me that is all that matters. Do what the tories do, lie you tits off for votes and do what you want when in power.

Given the primary angle for attacking trans people in the UK is from supposed radical feminists, I'm not remotely confident that a Labour government which listened to them wouldn't be worse than a Tory government. And that's not coming from a point of any level of regard for the Tories.

18 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

And that was idiotic then, too. I would have hoped that the party had learned its lesson.

That's fair, I really did just want to laugh about it.

[Heartofice]

56 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Do they want to be talking about it though? Or has this been forced on them by Rosie Duffield’s comments? I assume the ideal path for any politician is ‘appear to be pro-trans rights but never get caught in an interview being asked directly if only women have cervixes’; it’s a lose-lose situation. Seems that Starmer is trying to put this to bed as quickly as possible and move onto other, vote-winning policies.

Well people in Labour are talking about it and the problem with that is that the conversation becomes incredibly heated and stirs up a lot of noise. Clearly Starmer doesn’t want to get into the debate , but he’s also forced to take some sort of side because the way the debate is positioned doesn’t lend itself to a rational middle ground. 
 

It should be entirely possible to be pro trans rights without having to get caught up on language around ‘people with cervixes ’ , but for some reason that seems to be the line that gets drawn in the sand. 
 

But really the reason the Tories use it against Labour is because it is such an open goal, it really riles up the studenty left wing side of the party and gets them saying things that make zero sense to the voters they want to entice.

[Spockydog]

5 hours ago, dog-days said:

Is it right that Andy McDonald wanted to raise the minimum wage to £15.00/h from £8.91? That's a huge increase. 

Well that depends. Depends on whether you believe that working one full time job in this country should be enough to put a roof over your head and food in your belly.

It depends on whether you believe that the people who have kept the world running for the past two years are actually 'essential' workers whose pay should go some way towards reflecting that.

It depends on whether you believe that businesses who cannot afford to pay their staff a proper wage shouldn't be in business at all.

And it also depends on whether you believe that raising the minimum wage will ultimately raise wages for everyone.

Hint: It will.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said:

Agreed, and that’s not going away with his departure either: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58713344

From the article you linked:

Quote

 

Starmer supported a campaign in 2019 for McDonald's to improve its workers' pay and conditions. At the time, he said: "They're not asking for the Earth. They're asking for the basics - £15 an hour, the right to know their hours in advance and to have trade union recognition. That ought to be the norm in 21st Century Britain."

 

McDonald has every right to be angry.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Soylent Brown said:

I'll never understand why half of Labour members would prefer an actual Tory in power to their own 'fake Tory'.

If elections were boxing matches, the Tories would barely have to leave their own corner before Labour hit the floor, having delivered hammer-blow after hammer-blow to their own genitals.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Too many Labour members (and LibDems for that matter) are professional protesters. Getting into government requires broadening your appeal/compromising, regarded as betrayal, and being in government means further compromises in response to financial, international or legal pressures. It’s a lot easier to oppose everything and claim a utopia would be achievable if only ideological purity had been maintained. Being in perpetual opposition means never having to be provably wrong! 

[BigFatCoward]

I have no problem with a huge increase in minimum wage. But just a round figure of 15 quid an hour sounds like it's been plucked out of the air without costing. 

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I have no problem with a huge increase in minimum wage. But just a round figure of 15 quid an hour sounds like it's been plucked out of the air without costing. 

It might be an arbitrary figure, but that's what they're asking for across the pond.

And I don't see how asking for £14.87 instead of £15 lends any kind of weight to the argument.