If a general election was called, who would you vote for?

Cheese -

I was Labour member for many years, until quite recently. So I'm well acquainted with the general state of the party, probably more than most here.

I stand by what I said. Everybody has very strong ideas about exactly what the Labour party should be, and many of those ideas directly contradict each other. Despite that, everybody believes that virtually everyone else agrees with them ("it's so OBVIOUS!!!"). That's not just about me, or the Labour party, but an established feature of human psychology.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect

@FlyingOink

Who started all the Sure Start centres?

And who sold them off?

I don't believe the numbers are as clear as you say. The Brexit referendum was won by 52% - 48%. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 achieved its highest vote share since 1997 - higher than Blair/Brown's second and third terms.

Then there's the fact that the political conversation and the circumstances in which it takes place is not static but dynamic - particularly in regards to climate change and the disintegration of liberal democracy.

On every subject except trans rights you and many other posters here are in the process of getting exactly what you want - a socially conservative Labour party that makes nicer noises than the Tories but doesn't fundamentally challenge anything about how society works or who the economy works for.

And FWIW I certainly don't think Starmer or the Labour right are particularly attached to TWAW. I think it's just not nearly as big an issue to most people as it is to us here, and they haven't got around to dealing with it yet. It's clear that the "woke wars" are the next chapter of the Tories' age-old divide-and-conquer routine (and it's clear from this thread that it's working). Labour have already given up on the metropolitan liberal part of its base so I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see a commitment to sex-based rights before the next election.

It would certainly be worth pressuring them for it. They're bound to be amenable.

Tory - and I’m glad several of you agree! In most online communities admitting this will get you ostracised.

TooBig thank you! That's really interesting :)

Fifteen-

'I'm not sure it's that easy to ascertain which of Labour's policies or principles are responsible for them not having power though'

If you look at the general state of the party itself that might give you a better idea.

Fifteentoes there was plenty to not like about Blair but he achieved plenty and the purists have achieved fuck all.

I get what you're saying, but basically more people are "social conservatives" as you put it, than are "metropolitan university students".

The former group still wants some socialist economic policy but doesn't want to give up the word "mother" or pretend a man dressed as a sexed up monkey is acceptable in a public library.

The latter group is formed of very young people who will all diverge massively from the others in their university year cohort as they all age. I'm not sure their opinions, however articulate, are worth as much as the media suggest they do, especially as they will change.

You may disagree that TWAW leads to no Sure Start centres, but I see the link, in the same way that "leavers are all stupid racist gammons" leads to the NHS being sold off. I feel that Labour will be most happy when they've shrunk to the size of the Socialist Worker's Party, and are completely irrelevant yet ideologically pure. Some SDP style "Progress" offshoot might become the next Lib Dems maybe.

They haven't even polled on this stuff, using clear language. They should. The percentage of the UK voting population who "would consider voting Labour if they didn't keep coming up with this shit" has got to be fairly high.

@CheeseMmmm, they have local councillors and MLAs in Stormount, but no MPs. They're brilliant at finding local solutions to local problems without the need for enquiries, surveys and legistlation. They work hard.

Does that make sense now?

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm not sure it's that easy to ascertain which of Labour's policies or principles are responsible for them not having power though. One problem is that parties intending to gain power under First Past The Post need to appeal to a huge a diverse demographic. For every social conservative saying Labour are too obsessed with identity politics, there's a metropolitan university students saying they're too obessed with pandering to social conservatives. For every economic centrist saying they're too far left, there's an old-style socialist saying they're too far right. And because everyone's impression of the "will of the people" is mostly informed by people they know, all of these people think everyone else has the same objections they do.

Then there's the fact that being a political party isn't JUST about gaining power. You're also trying to gain power for a REASON. Otherwise politics would be easy: Every single party just copies the exact same policies of the one that won the last election, and the electorate votes for the one that has the best hair.

That being another common objection of course: Plenty of people deserted Labour because (in their opinion) during the Blair years they prioritised compromise and pragmatism too much over the values they were founded on and are supposed to believe. Pretty much the opposite of your position.

[quote Fifteentoes]@FlyingOink

I totally get that. I spent most of my adult life hating them. Now I'm more pissed off with Labour for throwing the poor under the bus for woke points. I expected more from Labour, I don't expect much from the Conservatives.

What have Labour done that you would call "throwing the poor under the bus"?[/quote]
My post at 10:27 yesterday explains what I mean by this.

To help people, you have to be in power. To get into power, you have to win the most votes (I'm oversimplifying). To get the most votes, you have to appeal to most people. To appeal to most people, you have to ditch niche policies that put the majority off.

If you rate your niche policy and your brand higher than your desire to actually effect some pragmatic change, you're what the right call virtue signalling.

If your party, by virtue of being the Official Opposition, still gets a wad of cash from the country, a wad of cash from unions and a wad of cash from members, you can run this debating society as a nice little earner ad infinitum.

None of the people you purport to care about get anything from you except empty words, hand wringing and insults for not being committed enough.

Does that make sense now?

I have no idea. I've always hated conservatives, most often vote Labour but not sure I can anymore. Probably spoil my ballet at the moment tbh

Until the tide well and truly turns on this shitshow which makes life even more than usually dangerous for girls and women - particularly those of us in vulnerable situations or who have been victims of sexual assault, abuse and DV - I am a single-issue voter.

My vote goes to the party who claim to know what a woman is.

Don't think this doesn't stick in the craw. I despise pretty much everything the Tories have ever stood for. I baulk at the idea of endorsing a party which saw through the dreadful Brexit referendum, I well understand the destructive effects of neoliberalism, elitist privilege and systemic inequality, I rail against the decimation of the unions and total lack of regard for working people, I loathe the mealy-mouthed 'back to basics' principles and conservative (small c), coy, lily-livered principles on bodily/individual autonomy; I also know that the Tories of all people are no friends of women, and this doesn't exclude many their women members.

Even so. That I can turn my back on principles such as these show it is that serious an issue for me.

Had a Google- Ireland- not an option here!

Are they widely supported, got people in parliament? Just interested!

Hello GAD!

I have considered your constructive criticism -

'You sure do love the sound of your own voice.
Lots and lots of long winded sentences, that make fuck all sense. Odd'

A few succinct thoughts.

1. If long posts get on your tits, it's better to reply than quote.

1. My posts are often long. Yours is succinct. Different people different posting styles.

1. I feel your reply adds nothing to the conversation. Obviously you felt compelled to post it. There's no rules about post length. Relax. You can scroll past posts you don't want to read. Or just skim them.

1. If I don't understand a post or a point I ask for clarification. The content is the important thing. IMO.

1. What did you want to achieve with your comment?

People Before Profit.

They are further to the left than me. I'm socially conservative, left of centre economically and quite liberal in most things. I've voted for PBP for years.

To answer the question, I will be dreaming of a decent Independent to vote for.

Lots and lots of long winded sentences, that make fuck all sense. Odd

I'm pretty sure 15 joined later and surely hasn't RTFT. If so then missed the fundamentals!

I joined it not at start but fairly early and found it in FWR.

Anyway. Still doesn't explain why insisting that there's nothing from OP or anyone else to say that's what it's about. When that's obviously not the case.
Still doesn't explain insistence on 'proving' that I believe something that is... Totally bizarre.

Why would anyone think oh yes definitely she thinks women and girls issues should be isolated from party politics.
Rather than thinking that seems odd maybe I've missed something.
And then tell me I've got a massive chip on my shoulder (about what?)

Be the way to go?

To me it's indicates that poster has certain views/ stereotypes of women/Feminists to be certain that yep totally likely poster would think this totally bizarre thing.
Using an insult when I say no that's not it at all and if read thread that's totally obvious.

To me it's not indicative of a desire to engage with discussion iyswim.

When someone says no I meant this, or you got that fact wonky. I say sorry fair enough. End.

I never think I'll argue at length with really crappy 'evidence' to prove they are essentially bonkers.

Takes all sorts...

What I said was:

Actually, there's not a single word in the thread title or the OP that says anything about sex/gender.

That is a fact, and nothing in your voluminous and incoherent essay negates it. Actually, I happily admitted that one might have been expected to ascertain the focus from the wider context of the board (although now we learn that it wasn't actually started on this board). But that's a different thing from your claim - which you made in ticking off another poster for not adequately reading your mind - that the focus of sex/gender was in the OP. The fact is, it wasn't. Your claim was false.

And it is. From the reason the thread exists which is sex/ gender

The thread was moved from Chat. It shouldn’t have been.

I will vote for whichever party has the best chance of defeating the SNP . This has nothing to do with sex and gender. If the SNP were to elect Joanna Cherry tomorrow it wouldn't make the slightest difference- I'd never vote for them.

'I also don’t feel happy voting Labour or Green, for reasons often discussed on this board'

If you didn't get a clue from the board, the OPs opening post.

Or any of the posts that somehow realised (mind readers?) that it was about gender / sex.

First page

'It seems like Labour - and the other parties - are thoroughly captured from the grassroots to the cowering top, and dissenters aren't allowed to speak up. I've realised that freedom of conscience and freedom of thought are the most important values for me, without which all else is trivial. I had just taken them.for granted up until recently.'

Next post

'From now on I will be voting by candidate rather than party. The first qualifying question is easy: What is a woman?'

Couple posts later still same page

'I wish I was in Canterbury so I could vote for Rosie Duffield.'

Then OP

'I haven’t considered Lib Dems since my one and only ever vote for them resulted in a coalition with the conservatives and a quick glance at their equalities page of their website makes lots of reference to gender and gender identity but not sex. Does this mean what I suspect it does? Why is sex not allowed in this list?'

Could be a coincidence that plenty posters assumed it was about sex/ gender,?

Maybe the OP herself got confused and forgot why she started the thread?

Why bother with this?

You claimed I was clear that party politics were totally irrelevant to women and girls, on any and all feminist issues ie anything at all related to anything where women and girls are having a bad time in some way. From trivial to utterly horrific.

And so there's zero point in going anything at all to try and get govt and presumably all the mechanisms of govt to do anything.

You are honestly trying to prove that I believe/ said that. And there's no indication from OP or anywhere else that this is about gender/sex.

Rather than saying oh right fair enough. Missed context. Sorry.
And move on.

Why? Insist that despite the obvious, you know better what the thread is actually about and therefore. Even if you did think it was about sex/ gender. I'm holding you to a position that it's very unlikely indeed you hold, and I accept that you were talking about sex/ gender. Nonetheless you said this and you meant what I said you meant.

Isn't it s bit pointless?
Do you ever just say oops ok ignore that?

I do. If I've got something wrong.
I don't carry on doing this. Thing. That you're doing. Imo makes people (and it's not uncommon on here to see this) look a bit silly really.

I'm also in Scotland and I'd spoil. I'm politically homeless

You said

Arguing about party politics is a huge distraction. This is about women and girls, all of us. I took that to mean you were isolating party politics from feminist issues.

You have a real chip on your shoulder.

---------

And it is. From the reason the thread exists which is sex/ gender.

There's a clue to that, the reason for the thread, in the OP.

Actually, there's not a single word in the thread title or the OP that says anything about sex/gender.

You could argue that because it's on the sex/gender BOARD people could be expected to assume that's the point. But the OP itself doesn't specify in any way to what extent it's inviting input purely from a feminist perspective, or from a more general one.

Which is your right, absolutely. But it's an important distinction.

Yes. The woke. We need to focus on the real problem. Economics.

@FlyingOink

I totally get that. I spent most of my adult life hating them. Now I'm more pissed off with Labour for throwing the poor under the bus for woke points. I expected more from Labour, I don't expect much from the Conservatives.

What have Labour done that you would call "throwing the poor under the bus"?