Jump to content

UK Politics: Picking Your Career


mormont
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

yeah it should be noted how the Tory party started talking about reproductive rights after Roe.https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jul/22/european-countries-pressurise-uk-over-removal-of-abortion-commitments-liz-truss

Also kinda wish there was more backlash from the police cracking down on peaceful anti-monarchist protesters 

UK conservatives are just 20-30 years behind ours, but they're moving in the same way. Thankfully the UK is less religious and also doesn't take bullshit as easily as people in the US do (see the Super League reaction, for example, we would have rolled over in a minute for it). 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

UK conservatives are just 20-30 years behind ours, but they're moving in the same way. Thankfully the UK is less religious and also doesn't take bullshit as easily as people in the US do (see the Super League reaction, for example, we would have rolled over in a minute for it). 

And, er, Iraq, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

UK conservatives are just 20-30 years behind ours, but they're moving in the same way. Thankfully the UK is less religious and also doesn't take bullshit as easily as people in the US do (see the Super League reaction, for example, we would have rolled over in a minute for it). 

Eh that may be giving them too much credit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walking is now also too noisy a protest.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Thankfully the UK is less religious and also doesn't take bullshit as easily as people in the US do (see the Super League reaction, for example, we would have rolled over in a minute for it). 

 

While I do agree that religious stuff in general won't fly, I think you're overselling how much the British react to bullshit. Over football, yes, but there isn't a tradition of truly mass protest and unrest against specific political issues in the same way you see in France or Poland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

While I do agree that religious stuff in general won't fly, I think you're overselling how much the British react to bullshit.

See the transphobia which is as bad if not worse than much of the  US.

By the next  general election I suspect there’ll be a serious push to ban gender affirmative care for anyone(as is the intended of the ‘gender critical’ movement funded American evangelicals) and/or the ability to transition legally.

24 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Walking is now also too noisy a protest.

Oh yeah the tories are actually unfortunately going the authoritarian route making an imperative for anyone cares for liberal democracy to vote them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

JFC. All they are telling us is what they can't do.

 

 

If everyone making under 100 grand a year gets it (for example) and the rich dont and its correctly means tested what's the problem? I don't want millionaires getting free childcare if it means money for the genuinely needy isn't available for other public services. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nadine Dorries still hasn’t officially resigned. Possibly just waiting until the ‘holding post’ becomes available, or possibly there’s pressure on Sunak to u-turn on her going to HoL and she’s waiting to see.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, polishgenius said:

While I do agree that religious stuff in general won't fly, I think you're overselling how much the British react to bullshit. Over football, yes, but there isn't a tradition of truly mass protest and unrest against specific political issues in the same way you see in France or Poland. 

I agree that we're less religious than the USA (thank goodness) but I wonder if religion is influencing the UK populist right more than people think it is.

While the populist right isn't that verbally Christian and includes a few prominent non-Christians, it is noticeably anti-Muslim. It is also noticeable how right wing press talks about Muslim refugees vs refugees belonging to other religions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lady_Qohor said:

I agree that we're less religious than the USA (thank goodness) but I wonder if religion is influencing the UK populist right more than people think it is.

While the populist right isn't that verbally Christian and includes a few prominent non-Christians, it is noticeably anti-Muslim. It is also noticeable how right wing press talks about Muslim refugees vs refugees belonging to other religions.

That's not the issue. Religion is certainly influencing the populist right in the UK. The issue is that, in the reverse of the US, that religious influence acts as a barrier to the populist right in the UK rather than an enabler. Centrist voters in the UK don't go to church much, and don't generally approve of mixing religion and politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

That's not the issue. Religion is certainly influencing the populist right in the UK. The issue is that, in the reverse of the US, that religious influence acts as a barrier to the populist right in the UK rather than an enabler. Centrist voters in the UK don't go to church much, and don't generally approve of mixing religion and politics.

Oh I agree that the UK populist right can't use religion to bolster their arguments in the same way that those in the US can. My point was that in the UK we tend to assume and talk about those on the populist right being principally influenced by things like greed, racism and classism - they are influenced by all those things, but I feel some may be also underestimating the extent to which they are influenced by religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

See the transphobia which is as bad if not worse than much of the  US.

By the next  general election I suspect there’ll be a serious push to ban gender affirmative care for anyone(as is the intended of the ‘gender critical’ movement funded American evangelicals) and/or the ability to transition legally.

Oh yeah the tories are actually unfortunately going the authoritarian route making an imperative for anyone cares for liberal democracy to vote them out.

I actually think there's a pretty major difference on this issue between the US and the UK. Transphobia in the UK got political prominence via Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism which was rooted very deeply in upper middle class white feminism with a very distinctly British flavour to it - every aspect there is relevant to how it came about. Trans people being the target is a fundamental part of the movement, it is explicitly a rejection of us and a desire to keep us out of "female spaces" initially and public life more broadly. American conservative groups saw the potential for this to be a useful fork of the culture war and funneled funds across the Atlantic to raise the profile of these exclusionary voices, they started kicking up more of a fuss and slowly sucked people online down the rabbit hole that Glinner was a trailblazer on. 

In the US however? I don't buy that they actually give much of a fuck about trans people. It's just a successful culture war outlet that rebounded off the UK and is now almost entirely about signalling just how righteously conservative they are to each other (you know, "virtue" signalling like they love to claim others are doing). Trump himself basically called them out for it a couple of days ago saying 5 years ago they had no idea who trans people even were. Its not about us at all.

That might not make much substantive difference in outcome, but its important to differentiate these two very different root causes in understanding whats happening. Transphobia is bad and dangerous in both, but one very much cares about hating trans people while the other we're simply who the magic 8 ball told them is the current villain to hate and it could have just as easily been dachshunds or some shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

 

again, why should a family with an income of 175-199 grand get free childcare if it means others don't?  My wife and i make more combined than her best friend, but as she is the only worker in her house and makes more than 100 grand she gets nothing, how is that fair?  The most needing should get the most, i don't see how that is complicated.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

again, why should a family with an income of 175-199 grand get free childcare if it means others don't?  My wife and i make more combined than her best friend, but as she is the only worker in her house and makes more than 100 grand she gets nothing, how is that fair?  The most needing should get the most, i don't see how that is complicated.  

The arguments against means testing that I'm sympathetic to are 

  1. The costs of enforcing the means testing are larger than the cost of simply supplying it to everyone. I'm not sure that would apply in this case as child care is genuinely relatively expensive, but I'm also not sure it doesn't so listing it off.
  2. By allowing the wealthier in society to access it, you get better buy in from the people with the most power and (hopefully) deter them from simply trying to get rid of it completely. The reality for this one of course is that the truly wealthy would never use the public option for their child care anyway, but it being available to them might take some resentment out of it. The income levels that you're talking about here aren't high enough to be the truly powerful, but they still tend to be influential as a whole, and plenty of them would still be taking public child care if they don't have to pay for it.

So both arguments are pragmatic ones, but also not applicable here if the single mother on 100 grand is already not qualifying anyway. They are arguments for making things truly universal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

See the transphobia which is as bad if not worse than much of the  US.

Having lived in both places, I agree with this and it's quite noticable. Every other week there's a transphobic column in even some of the left leaning newspapers.

It's not great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I am not fucking getting into this with you again, but I just want to point out you leaped on the white part to cry victim and completely ignored the first (and I certainly view it as most important) descriptor there of upper middle class. Its a viewpoint that doesn't want aspects of the world to change because the people holding that viewpoint have a very comfortable place the way things currently are. Yes I said white as well, because believe it or not white women are more likely to occupy those places of relative comfort and power in academic institutions in the United Kingdom.

I ignored the upper middle class bit because it’s so obvious that anything you said about gender critical feminists backgrounds exactly tracks to trans activists as well. I pointed out that it’s you making these rhetorical tricks as a way of planting these ideas that it’s these nefarious rich white women fighting minorities.. yet it’s rich middle class people on both sides having these arguments

 

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

. Its because as far as you're concerned all accusations of transphobia are bullshit so you don't need the details.

No, and not going into again because there are numerous threads where I’ve asked for examples of this ‘transphobia’ and every single time you and others have come up empty handed. That’s because it’s the view that any disagreement with every single tenet of trans activist thinking is labelled as ‘transphobic’. I mean if don’t think that then maybe you should be less clumsy with your language and stop using the word ‘transphobia’ so imprecisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

The arguments against means testing that I'm sympathetic to are 

  1. The costs of enforcing the means testing are larger than the cost of simply supplying it to everyone. I'm not sure that would apply in this case as child care is genuinely relatively expensive, but I'm also not sure it doesn't so listing it off.

Its already means tested, any family where one person makes over 100 grand doesn't get it, but a family with 2 parents making 90 grand does which is insane.  There is no cost to the means testing as far as i can tell. 

the rules should be  something like

any family making less than 100 grand gets fully subsidised

any family making 100-150 grand gets a % subsidised

any family making 150-200 grand gets a lower % subsidised

any family making over 200 grand gets nothing

or similar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Its already means tested, any family where one person makes over 100 grand doesn't get it, but a family with 2 parents making 90 grand does which is insane.  There is no cost to the means testing as far as i can tell. 

the rules should be  something like

any family making less than 100 grand gets fully subsidised

any family making 100-150 grand gets a % subsidised

any family making 150-200 grand gets a lower % subsidised

any family making over 200 grand gets nothing

or similar. 

Yeah - I probably shouldn't have been making a general response to the idea of means testing when I was ignorant of the specifics here. I can definitely see your point, and that whole "1x100 = no go, but 2 x 90 is fine" strikes me as some poorly crafted criteria. While its true that a single adult has a much greater disposable income than a couple with a kid who earn the same amount, that goes completely out the window for a single parent. I'd expect that the amount of things you have to pay for when you wouldn't if a partner could do it themselves (rather relevantly - some of child care) balance out, if not surpass, the extra cost of living coming from the extra mouth to feed etc.

Given this is only applicable to parents, I'm with you. To go back to my general point, an even better argument might be to simply make it available to everyone, but if that's not on the cards (and it clearly isn't now) then fixing the current system to be more fair is at least improving things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...