Jump to content

UK Politics: Rwanda Rehash


Maltaran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah, I’m scratching my head a bit. Presumably he was supposed to say nothing? 

But her target audience is people who don’t want be made to feel uncomfortable about transphobia. And Starmer made them feel uncomfortable. So they need some reason to make out that he’s the bad guy here. Logic has no more to do with it than respect, kindness or compassion do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s just desperate from Sunak and the timing is really bad. Is anyone even advising him?  
 

Sure it’s disappointing that Starmer still doesn’t know how to answer the ‘what is a woman’ question after Labour was becoming more sensible, but the idea that anyone is going to balance that over years of extreme Tory incompetence is just pure fantasy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like politics for pre-schoolers that even if you believe trans-women are men and trans-men are women, you don't rub it in the face of the parents of a murder victim who was murdered because she was trans.

But worse still the PM being deliberately transphobic in the House of Commons, basically giving the impression (confirmation?) that govt policy is transphobia, puts all trans people in danger... sorry I mean even more danger than they were already in. Just another step in the dehumanisation of the trans community.

Is it not possible, regardless of your position on the legitimacy of trans-ness, for all politicians to at least agree that the govt should not endanger the life or health of any law abiding people? That seems like it should be a given, it's not even asking govt to protect the lives of all, just don't do or say anything to endanger them.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem fir RS is its almost impossible to sound out of touch and totally unsympathetic, when  that's what you really. 

Its actually almost not his fault. His whole life has been leading to this moment. He's still a fucking cunt though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/6/2024 at 6:29 AM, Derfel Cadarn said:

The advantage is probably mostly in the prestige (for top unis) and making contacts with other rich people

The advantage is being in a group which will value success. One where the teachers presumably give a damn. Rather than a shitty government school where half the teachers treat it as just a job, most of the class have no major ambitions, unless you’re good at sport there is no acclaim, and most of the class will deride you for trying to learn and do well. 
 

I finished top 2% in Victoria in my year so you can do it. But I also swore if I ever had kids I’d never send them to a standard government school. And my parents were upper middle class so I had significant non-school support and encouragement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is it not possible, regardless of your position on the legitimacy of trans-ness, for all politicians to at least agree that the govt should not endanger the life or health of any law abiding people? That seems like it should be a given, it's not even asking govt to protect the lives of all, just don't do or say anything to endanger them.

I don’t see how this relates to what Sunak said to be honest. It’s not helpful to blow things out of proportion like that. 
 

The not so big reveal here is mainly that Sunak is utterly incapable of understanding communication and human empathy, he’s just a weirdo.
 

It would have been perfectly possible to highlight Starmers flip flopping and backtracking, and even make a point about Starmers trans identity position, without doing it in the crass offensive manner that he did. That Sunak didn’t see the obvious backlash that he would get from his comments, and that he still seems to think it’s a vote winning position, just suggests he’s both incredibly weak and incredibly badly advised.

There was potential for Sunak to come in and be the boring candidate, the sensible money man who will go back to conservative values of sensible spending and growth. Instead he’s leaned into the far right fringes and it suit him, he’s clearly really uncomfortable on those issues but pushes it anyway. 
 

A couple of weeks ago I thought it was insane for there to be a plot to oust Rishi, but now, he seems like the worst possible candidate going 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ants said:

The advantage is being in a group which will value success. One where the teachers presumably give a damn. Rather than a shitty government school where half the teachers treat it as just a job, most of the class have no major ambitions, unless you’re good at sport there is no acclaim, and most of the class will deride you for trying to learn and do well. 
 

I finished top 2% in Victoria in my year so you can do it. But I also swore if I ever had kids I’d never send them to a standard government school. And my parents were upper middle class so I had significant non-school support and encouragement. 

That is a completely inaccurate generalisation of state schools. The state school I went to, and the one my sons went to basically placed no career / life goal value on sports, and the teachers were generally committed to the educational success of their students and very competent in their subject areas. It is true, however, that both of these schools were by a significant margin majority white and Asian. But our schools weren't even among the top academic performing state schools. I am pretty sure New Zealand is not the only country where many / most state schools place high value on academic achievement, and whose students do attain high academic achievement both at school and in tertiary education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That is a completely inaccurate generalisation of state schools. The state school I went to, and the one my sons went to basically placed no career / life goal value on sports, and the teachers were generally committed to the educational success of their students and very competent in their subject areas. It is true, however, that both of these schools were by a significant margin majority white and Asian. But our schools weren't even among the top academic performing state schools. I am pretty sure New Zealand is not the only country where many / most state schools place high value on academic achievement, and whose students do attain high academic achievement both at school and in tertiary education.

Oh, my school didn’t give a shit about sporting careers. It was just if one of the kids did well at sport they’d talk them up, while ignoring any other type of success. 

The school was 100% white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ants said:

The advantage is being in a group which will value success. One where the teachers presumably give a damn. Rather than a shitty government school where half the teachers treat it as just a job, most of the class have no major ambitions, unless you’re good at sport there is no acclaim, and most of the class will deride you for trying to learn and do well. 
 

I finished top 2% in Victoria in my year so you can do it. But I also swore if I ever had kids I’d never send them to a standard government school. And my parents were upper middle class so I had significant non-school support and encouragement. 

Sorry if this was your experience, but its a pretty gross generalisation that undervalues both teachers and students. In my experience teachers in State schools show a lot of care for their students and do their best in difficult situations. I remember several teachers specifically who went out of their way to support me through some especially difficult moments in primary and later secondary school.

And sure, you'll get some shitty students who say "Eww you want to learn?" Thats nothing to do with it being a State school. Its because kids are sometimes awful to each other. Saying that kids who go to State school have no ambition...sorry, I don't know how you intended this to come off but its really pretty shitty and judgmental

Edited by HexMachina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a good comprehansive school.   It probably helped that this was a small secondry school (although at the time I thought it was huge  my primary had just 5 classes for catering for all 6 + reception kids with about 25-30 kids in each class)  it basically just took kids from the surrounding villages.  I think not being a Town or city school meant that some of the class pressures where not present.

 

the school normally performed well in the leage tables of results normally sitting arround just under most of the grammer schools.  accedmic success was encouraged and a majority of students went on to 6th form or colleage then univercity  - espcially compared to other schools.    normally one or two former students a year would end up going to Oxford or Cambridge for univercity.  It was not unusal 

Those who where less able accedmically where given a lot of help and support. and encouragement to find what they where good at.  The school was able to care for students on an individual basis and not a one size fits all approach.

The school was not even in a middleclass area  although probably higher working class on average with some parents who would be middleclass.  the well off families sent their kids to a nearby small town school (still a state school) not this one, but they would have to drive them to school themselves as not bus was availble.  It did have parents who were mostly fully employed with a stay at home mum or part time (I'm old) It had high levels of parental interest.

 

Of course this was 30 years ago when I left and things may well have changed.  When Blair was first running his Education Education Education election campaign  I did not really understand what the issue was, although I was aware from friends I did my appreniceship with how crap their schools where.

 

my point is good state schools do and can exsist.  but the quality of state shcools is very varrible.

 

The worst thing I can say about my school, my local MP was educated there (although only for 3 years not 5) and this was well before my time there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ants said:

The advantage is being in a group which will value success. One where the teachers presumably give a damn. Rather than a shitty government school where half the teachers treat it as just a job, most of the class have no major ambitions, unless you’re good at sport there is no acclaim, and most of the class will deride you for trying to learn and do well. 
 

I think this is a fear of a lot of parents, and not an entirely unfounded fear. Obviously yes it is a generalisation but there are definitely areas where school and education are not seen as a priority, by the kids and their families.

I grew up in a working class area, pretty mixed demographically and definitely there was a big divide between which kids did well and which didn't, and you could often see who was going to do well just by whether they were from a more working or middle class family, and what countries their families came from. 

I don't think it's something that is discussed enough really, the cultural value of education and the differences families put on it. A lot of working class, white families just don't care that much, school is something you 'have' to do, but there isn't the expectation for your kids to go to Oxford and work in finance. There isn't that level of ambition, and actually I'm not sure that is a problem, but then the education they receive should feel practical and useful. Middle class families tend to have parents who went to uni, so the expectation is the same for the kids. Many families of asian background also place great value on their kids getting a good education and huge expectations on that success. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are young people deserting conservatism in Britain but nowhere else?

Article from the FT as to why young people aren't voting Tories. I mean outside of the obvious answer 'cos they are shit', one of the main issues cited is the lack of upward mobility, especially when it come being able to buy a house.
 

Quote

 We tend to talk about the decline in young adults’ home ownership as if it were a universal phenomenon. This is wrong. The share of 25-to-34-year-olds who own their own home in the US is six percentage points lower today than it was in 1990. In Germany it’s down eight points, in France just three, but in Britain the drop is 22 points. It’s a similar story with incomes, where Britons in their thirties are tracing the same trajectories as their forebears while Americans are leaving theirs in the dust.
 

There is also a lack of trust is social mobility:
 

Quote

Oxford has shown that young Britons have lost the belief in social mobility that was a given for their parents’ generation. Applying his methodology internationally, I find that just 39 per cent of British under-30s trust that hard work will bring rewards, far below those in the US (60 per cent) and Germany (49), and also far below the 60 per cent of British 70-somethings who believe the same because it was true for them.

Is any of that surprising. Why would you feel like the best way to get ahead is to work hard, when the people who the best in society have mostly been the ones who just got lucky, who came from good families, or bought a house in the 80's /90's and have just been creaming money from buy to lets and exploiting people. Or if you can just make more money from Tik Tok and OF than you ever would from a 9-5. The system in general just feels completely broken I'm sure for many people.

The Tories themselves are a complete wreck, and have no idea how to handle any of this. Sorting out housing would be a start,  but even now it seems like house building has dropped, so what is the solution?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Why are young people deserting conservatism in Britain but nowhere else?

Article from the FT as to why young people aren't voting Tories. I mean outside of the obvious answer 'cos they are shit', one of the main issues cited is the lack of upward mobility, especially when it come being able to buy a house.
 

There is also a lack of trust is social mobility:
 

Is any of that surprising. Why would you feel like the best way to get ahead is to work hard, when the people who the best in society have mostly been the ones who just got lucky, who came from good families, or bought a house in the 80's /90's and have just been creaming money from buy to lets and exploiting people. Or if you can just make more money from Tik Tok and OF than you ever would from a 9-5. The system in general just feels completely broken I'm sure for many people.

The Tories themselves are a complete wreck, and have no idea how to handle any of this. Sorting out housing would be a start,  but even now it seems like house building has dropped, so what is the solution?

 

I think the obvious answer is that Tory voters are also homeowners which means that 1) They don't care, and 2) They will actively fight and oppose anything that reduces their real estate value, such as building new housing near them (the hidden incentive behind NIMBYsm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the absolute lack of discussion about Starmer breaking one of his biggest, most important promises is due to fact that nobody is at all fucking surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, making spending/tax cut promises without explaining where the money/savings are coming from is what Truss/Kwarteng tried, and as a resukt rents and mortgages shot up, and measures were needed to save our pensions.

Labour promising the earth while not knowing the full state of the economy they will inherit is irresponsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Labour promising the earth while not knowing the full state of the economy they will inherit is irresponsible. 

So instead of promising the earth, they are saying fuck the earth.

We live in a world where the entire planet can be put into mountains of unimaginable debt to save a bunch of fucking bankers.

I do not accept that we cannot afford to try and save life on earth.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

We live in a world where the entire planet can be put into mountains of unimaginable debt to bail out a bunch of fucking bankers.

This x 1,000,000. 

And politicians of all stripes and political persuasions always count on the plebs not remembering all the bail-outs to mostly undeserving corporations when they "have to" (they don't, but that's the spin) give the people - or the planet - yet another 'fuck you' b/c it's what their masters expect of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...