UK Politics: It's Time To Think The Unthinkable But This Lot Can't Even Think The Thinkable

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Hopefully so—as transphobia—which I understand you deny exists—is really  bad. And I’d rather labor not support it

Of course transphobia exists, but Jones' definition of it includes anyone that disagrees with him on any issue. 

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This statement  literally has nothing to do what I or the tweet said.

It does if you think about it a bit more. If Labour back the Tory motion it's because they realise the bill is unpopular and don't want to fall into the trap of looking to support far left extreme trans policy that is would alienate red wall voters. My point is the bill isn't even popular in Scotland where it was voted in, its not going to be popular in the rest of the UK either.

[The Anti-Targ]

11 hours ago, ants said:

Isn't that convenient. For years economists have been saying a major reason you can't have governments just going around printing money for everything is inflation. Of which there are plenty of examples in the past. You then have the Western world do exactly that, but no, that didn't have anything to do with the current inflation. Do you really think that the huge amounts of money given out during COVID to both the rich but especially the poor, especially in the USA, didn't have a huge impact? Sure, the supply chain impacts exacerbated it, as did the Ukraine war. But inflation was taking off before the war, and the huge driver was consumer demand. Which hasn't reduced yet in much of the west despite the interest rate rises. 

Y'see you have it backwards, the supply and corruption issues had a huge impact, and the COVID welfare payments somewhat exacerbated it. But look at the highest inflation rate modern, stable, relatively uncorrupt economies have seen: single digit inflation, that is a loooong way from hyper-inflation. This cycle is an excellent demonstration that short sharp high rates of govt spending only have a moderate effect on inflation, and even less if the spending isn't partly or significantly cheap money for the already very wealthy.

Everyone likes inflation, we just don't like it to be too high. But the reason for this sort of inflation being a coat of living crises is not the inflation per se, it's the suppression of wage growth. There is no cost of living crises of wages are more or less tracking with inflation. But there is a coat of living crisis if wages have been lagging I flation for a decade and then there is an inflation spike with wages not also rising to compensate.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Y'see you have it backwards, the supply and corruption issues had a huge impact, and the COVID welfare payments somewhat exacerbated it. But look at the highest inflation rate modern, stable, relatively uncorrupt economies have seen: single digit inflation, that is a loooong way from hyper-inflation. This cycle is an excellent demonstration that short sharp high rates of govt spending only have a moderate effect on inflation, and even less if the spending isn't partly or significantly cheap money for the already very wealthy.

Everyone likes inflation, we just don't like it to be too high. But the reason for this sort of inflation being a coat of living crises is not the inflation per se, it's the suppression of wage growth. There is no cost of living crises of wages are more or less tracking with inflation. But there is a coat of living crisis if wages have been lagging I flation for a decade and then there is an inflation spike with wages not also rising to compensate.

What gets missed in all of these discussions is that cheap money DOES lead to inflation, but that the inflation for the most part has been into assets. So stocks and housing have seen enormous levels of inflation in this time period, with everyone scratching their heads as to why that is. We are only now talking about terrifying inflation when it starts to affect other prices like food and luxury items.

[ants]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Y'see you have it backwards, the supply and corruption issues had a huge impact, and the COVID welfare payments somewhat exacerbated it. 

Right. So when the rich got COVID payments it trickled down into inflation. When they get tax cuts, it doesn't. Maybe you should compare the scale of the payments the two groups got (rich vs. non-rich) compared to what they normally get out of government? 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But look at the highest inflation rate modern, stable, relatively uncorrupt economies have seen: single digit inflation, that is a loooong way from hyper-inflation. This cycle is an excellent demonstration that short sharp high rates of govt spending only have a moderate effect on inflation, and even less if the spending isn't partly or significantly cheap money for the already very wealthy.

Well, as the central banks have reacted by increasing interest rates its unlikely we'll ever know what the full consequences of not reacting would have been. However, I would point out that the central banks likely reaction was known, so the increases in interest rates which are very regressive are a known consequence. So for those who are recommending to get the UK government out of trouble by significantly increasing government spending via debt, please recognise you're also arguing then for regressive interest rate hikes. 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Everyone likes inflation, we just don't like it to be too high. But the reason for this sort of inflation being a coat of living crises is not the inflation per se, it's the suppression of wage growth. There is no cost of living crises of wages are more or less tracking with inflation. But there is a coat of living crisis if wages have been lagging I flation for a decade and then there is an inflation spike with wages not also rising to compensate.

Well duh we don't like it too high. And anytime inflation takes off it outstrips wage increases; because they lag price inflation. But when those increases go through if the economy hasn't cooled they'll trigger more inflation. 

The cost of living crisis is one which in the UK has been developing for a while. But everyone in the world is experiencing a new, sharp crisis of living even if they didn't have one before. Since the system is now so inter-linked. Ironically, trying to fix this via wage inflation has a real risk at a time of price inflation to exacerbate the issue. It would have been better to fix when demand was lower. 

All of this is to say, the idea that the UK can just deficit spend out of trouble is, frankly, ridiculous. And the idea that it is certain that even with taxing the rich that the money is available to spend on all the things we want to spend it on is quite likely to fail. There is the real problem with the UK that it may have to face which is that it is poorer than it was. As a consequence, it may not be able to have all the nice things it wants.

Although this is a big issue for the UK right now, a lot of Western countries will have to grapple with the issue as they face ageing populations and reduced taxable populations. Since the baby boomers didn't think (except for Norway and few others) about planning ahead and actually investing their wealth for their retirements. 

[ants]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

What gets missed in all of these discussions is that cheap money DOES lead to inflation, but that the inflation for the most part has been into assets. So stocks and housing have seen enormous levels of inflation in this time period, with everyone scratching their heads as to why that is. We are only now talking about terrifying inflation when it starts to affect other prices like food and luxury items.

Which has certainly caused its own set of problems (see house prices in the UK and Australia as just one example). I've certainly criticised the central banks operating far too long after the GFC (and before the GFC in the case of the USA). But at least it wasn't as likely to feed into price inflation. 

[Spockydog]

How many other cabinet ministers are currently being investigated by HMRC?

The PM's spokesman doesn't know.

Is it none? I don't fucking think so. 

 

 

[Spockydog]

Personally, I hope they keep this Zahawi character in situ until the election. 

He and Boris Johnson will be the poster boys of Labour's campaign. 

[BigFatCoward]

I honestly don't know how they aren't polling less than 10%.

Absolute fucking cunts, every single one of them. 

[Spockydog]

I wonder how long before Sir Keir goes full "Very good people on both sides." 

Labour must discuss gender with ‘respect’, says Keir Starmer

 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Former Labour MP claims fraudulent expenses to buy cocaine. Surprised the Tories haven’t recruited him. If he’d gone on to grope random dudes

in a pub, he’d be a shoe-in.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64375992

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 hours ago, Heartofice said:

transphobia exists

19 hours ago, Heartofice said:

does if you think about it a bit more

Dude he wasn’t even referring to Scottish’s bill to make it easier for trans people to change their birth certificates much less declaring the popularity of it.

I think you misunderstood the tweet.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 1/22/2023 at 5:00 PM, ants said:

Similar to the USA, the main way of making these changes is to become members of the party and influence who is running for the party. Getting progressive parliamentary members who won't accept right-wing positions and put pressure for progressive legislation and governance is the most effective play.

Yes I understand the rationale, lesser of two evils, but there’s a difference between not being that vocal to the culture warrior’s right moral panics on some issues and being actively supportive of them, especially when they’re moral panics that aren’t really popular.

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:00 PM, ants said:

Getting the Tories elected to push Labour left isn't going to help much long term, especially in the UK with five years between elections. 

The question is help who exactly? And how long term?

Like tories wouldn’t just evaporate once out of power they’ll probably lean more into culture war nonesense to differentiate them from labor who moved right to get that disaffected conservative voter and under Starmer labor may go further right as well to compete thinking “well the left and progressives, and social libs are already in the bag.” Like macron has done in France.  acts a right wing culture warrior, and a corporate thug for most of his term, then guilt trip the left into voting for him over his opponent whose a fascist.

A shift in Overton window towards the far right on economic and social issues long term is bad.

in 2029 it’d suck to see progressives have to choose between  terfy lady who wants to criminalize cross dressing to prevent men from infiltrating female spaces, and gender affirming therapy because gender is sexist, or a labor party who just wants to raise the age to medically transition to 30.

[Varysblackfyre321]

 

the hysteria about gender idealogy would inevitably morph into cries again about the gay agenda in general.

 

[ants]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Yes I understand the rationale, lesser of two evils, but there’s a difference between not being that vocal to the culture warrior’s right moral panics on some issues and being actively supportive of them, especially when they’re moral panics that aren’t really popular.

 

The question is help who exactly? And how long term?

Like tories wouldn’t just evaporate once out of power they’ll probably lean more into culture war nonesense to differentiate them from labor who moved right to get that disaffected conservative voter and under Starmer labor may go further right as well to compete thinking “well the left and progressives, and social libs are already in the bag.” Like macron has done in France.  acts a right wing culture warrior, and a corporate thug for most of his term, then guilt trip the left into voting for him over his opponent whose a fascist.

A shift in Overton window towards the far right on economic and social issues long term is bad.

in 2029 it’d suck to see progressives have to choose between  terfy lady who wants to criminalize cross dressing to prevent men from infiltrating female spaces, and gender affirming therapy because gender is sexist, or a labor party who just wants to raise the age to medically transition to 30.

Maybe if people did what I suggested at the start of my post, which you quoted, but then seemed to ignore, it wouldn't be a problem. Or less of one. 

Anyone British who is truly concerned about this should be signing up as labour members and pushing for progressive candidates. Is there any good reason for any adult transperson to not be a member of the labour party? People want change, but then won't do anything about it. 

[ants]

Just did a quick search. There are estimated to be ~250,000 trans people in the UK. The labour party has membership around 430,000. So if they all signed up as labour members they would have a huge say, if not a controlling one, on who gets to run for labour. And of course, those numbers don't begin to touch on everyone who is not trans, but supportive. 

Now, I'm sure that those numbers aren't distributed evenly across the UK. But that just means their supporters would be more dominant in the areas they are big in. Turn 20% of Labour members to big supporters, and see how quickly the next Labour leader switches tunes. 

[mormont]

28 minutes ago, ants said:

Is there any good reason for any adult transperson to not be a member of the labour party?

Yes. They'd face open hostility and discrimination in some branches. They'd be in a party whose leader is equivocating on their rights. That would be a tremendously difficult experience for a group of people who face a high degree of stress in their daily lives already.

Also, it's not actually up to trans people to make sure that things like human rights are important to the Labour party. Don't put the onus on them.

Having to pick the lesser of two evils sucks. Having to campaign for basic respect sucks more. I agree with you that in the end, many trans people will be forced to hold their nose and vote Labour because they have little effective choice. But I won't criticise, even by implication, anyone who feels unable to and neither should anyone else in my view. And the above remark comes close to that.

ETA - you seem also to be suggesting that less than 20% of Labour members are already big supporters of trans rights, by the way. You might want to rethink that.

[Heartofice]

This just illustrates the whole problem with these discussion. When one side is unable to make any distinction between individual points of difference and some sort of monolith of unalienable trans rights then it becomes impossible to say anything meaningful. 
 

Going back to the Scottish bill, when polled there was a large majority in favour of making it easier for trans people to access and apply for a GRC ( something btw the UK government was also in favour of). However the more controversial elements of that bill had far less support. Reducing the age to 16, removing any need for a gender dismorphia diagnosis for instance were all not popular measures. 
 

So why do we pretend there is this obvious collective set of ‘trans rights’ that everyone agrees on. Is it obvious that trans women have the right to compete in women’s events for instance? Clearly not, but extremists on one side want to paint any opposition to any point of contention as being ‘against trans rights’. It’s so utterly dishonest I’m not sure how anyone can say this stuff with a straight face.

[SeanF]

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that South Yorkshire Police and Ofsted showed no interest in investigating scores of allegations of child abuse in Doncaster.

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Reducing the age to 16, re

Yeah that sounds awesome. What’s your problem with that good thing if you have one?

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

removing any need for a gender dismorphia diagnosis for instance were all not popular measures. 

Sounds reasonable. I can understand perhaps the fear if we talking perhaps medical intervention being allowed—but for matters preventing misgendering on legal documentation such as birth and death certificates.

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

So why do we pretend there is this obvious collective set of ‘trans rights’ that everyone agrees on

There clearly isn’t—many Terfs and many other transphobes would criminalize anything in regards to transitioning and not see it as a violation of trans people’s rights for instance.

bigots tend to not recognize the rights of the people they’re being bigoted as rights.

Ex.

“It’s not bigoted to ban same sex marriage—no one could marry a member of the sex regardless of sexual orientation.” A homophobe could say honestly while pushing to ban gay marry.

Another ex. A terf or general transphobe   could push for trans men to in call cases be banned from getting a mastectomy.

banning gay marriage would be a violation of gay rights.

banning trans men from getting top surgery in all cases would be a violation of trans rights.

 

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Clearly not, but extremists on one side want to paint any opposition to any point of contention as being ‘against trans rights’.

Extremists on one side want to paint any transphobic policy, or rhetoric as rational, and something that should be empathized with so long as it literally falls short state mandated execution of anyone trans or gnc. 
 

14 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It’s so utterly dishonest I’m not sure how anyone can say this stuff with a straight face.

Luckily no one here has said the things you’re howling/screeching  about again.
 

 

[Zorral]

There is this thing that cis men also get breast cancer.  Not at as high rate as cis women, but there ya go.