Boris has nailed colours to mast

The fact that there are a lot of Labour MPs that are convinced that they have some kind of special hold on ideological purity doesn't make them nicer people, it just makes them arrogant ineffective MPs who won't listen to the concerns of those they are actually supposed to be representing.

Very true. Appreciating many posts on here

Iwas ha me too

And given the initial wording was quite woolly with it’s overwhelmingly stuck in we’re really getting the pebbles.

Still it’s better than the alternative and the outright denial of biological reality.

Convincing people that being pro-globalism and pro movement of labour is the only acceptable left wing position, and any other POV is a result of some kind of alt-right bigotry, has been one of the biggest cons and greatest triumphs of liberal capitalists in recent years. I am sure they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Thank you. I was surprised by Labours position on globalisation, I always considered it a capitalists wet dream. It works for those who already have money. Those who don't have been persuaded its the future and the morally superior position.

Julia Hartley Brewer is on 🔥🔥 on this & asking every politician who comes on her show on Talk radio 'what is a women?'

It's really exposing them.

She asked Rishi this morning who was totally unprepared and avoided an answer. Just said 'I agree with Boris.'

They're going to need to get better prepared.

Corbyn has always been critical of the EU, the ironic thing perhaps is that if he had followed his own line of thought rather than tow the line he would have probably had a fair amount of support.

Being anti-EU, or at least anti Uk being part of the EU, was absolutely normative Labour/left wing politics until about 5 minutes ago.

Convincing people that being pro-globalism and pro movement of labour is the only acceptable left wing position, and any other POV is a result of some kind of alt-right bigotry, has been one of the biggest cons and greatest triumphs of liberal capitalists in recent years. I am sure they are laughing all the way to the bank.

The rhetoric that somehow Labour MPs are the ones who "really care" while Tory MPs are all just out for themselves is completely ridiculous. Parties are not people, they don't care about anything, they reflect the thinking and concerns of their members. The fact that there are a lot of Labour MPs that are convinced that they have some kind of special hold on ideological purity doesn't make them nicer people, it just makes them arrogant ineffective MPs who won't listen to the concerns of those they are actually supposed to be representing.

Political pragmatism is not a moral failing, like all qualities it can become one in some situations, but it's also it's how parties can understand what the electorate is telling them they care about.

Yes, people accept without question that men will act in their own interests, and they abuse women for acting in theirs.

It's no coincidence it is the inevitable result of our female socialisation.

Can you imagine any other group agonising about standing up for themselves because another group might be temporarily neglected or suffer indirectly as a result?

If, let's say, a law was proposed to curfew men after 10pm by all the left leaning parties do you think that men would dither about worrying about what voting Conservative might do to the poor, disabled or women?
Would they fuck! They'd be crossing their X to Tory candidate quick as they could.

But obviously that, although there is plenty of evidence it would impact crime figures and increase safety would never happen because men will vote with self interest. Political parties have done this to women for years though. Yes, we'll get to women's rights but just sort out x y z first. Honestly we'll get there. And they never do.

Well mummy needs to stop making sure everyone else has their dinner cut up, changed, blown on and do the dinner song with tambourines.

For once, she needs to set the tone and eat her own dinner first whilst it's still hot.

We need to sort this whilst it is still salvageable.

We're not everyone's mum.

I've been thinking about how women do not use the power of our numbers to make sure politicians value our vote. If every single woman were to vote Conservative in protest over women's rights we would decimate all the parties who claim to be confused about what a woman is. We would only need to do it once and ALL parties would know you ignore women at your peril, we would have shown them we have power. In fact we would prehaps only need to tell pollsters we intended to vote conservative to have an impact. We are caught up worrying about what 5 more years of the Conservatives will bring for those already struggling but if we lose legal recognition of women as a sex class then women will struggle for generations.

Stopping laws being passed is easier than repealing those already made.

I guess the thing is, all my life I was told labour was the moral choice, or the lib Dems. That I should vote for them as my moral duty. I was told they did xyz for the poor, disabled etc. and Tories were evil and would actively hurt anyone but the rich.

However, now I'm being told that supporting trans rights is the moral choice and it's my duty to push for it. But I can see the harms done by this. None of which are acknowledged.

I'm just wondering what possible harms or unpalatable truths I've not been alerted to because I have believed without too much investigation that labour is best for the country.

And like I say, I'm in education. I can name countless harms done to the sector. But they're not just harms that happened in the conservatives time. In fact, some of the far reaching run off the railroads out of control issues we have in education were started by Labour.

I just think it's interesting because I used to parrot how labour were right and Tories wrong and, although I read manifestos I didn't do a lot of critical thinking after the fact. I tended to give labour a pass, act of God can't be helped kind of thing.

And actually now I reflect I'm not sure they're what I thought. But I am so wedded to the idea that Tories are bad I still struggle to give them kudos when they do something good. I see a lot of myself in the posters who state they'll never vote Tory but I asked myself why and couldn't come up with anything really concrete that wasn't also dependent on other factors like individual ministers, global events etc.

It's like it's a litany I have been taught to repeat and I feel like I've started to question it and the wheels come off.

Parallels are obvious to me.

t's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children

That thing sailing over your head is the point.

• If female resources, services, spaces, even their ability to be identified as a group in law with protections, is eroded and removed as it is being

• if it is now socially acceptable to exclude females from spaces, accept that some of them are denied access and this is ok for the crime of having challenges and issues based on their biology that are incompatible with male freedom of self expression and choice

• if females are not allowed to mention their biology because male people find it too upsetting, and the impact on females as a result is seen as worth it so long as those male people aren't offended and this is considered ok

.... how the actual fuck do you think we even talk about never mind protect the women who can't heat their homes, can't feed their kids, can't escape life threatening violence and abuse, are living in poverty with kids they can't walk away from after a male partner has, can't work because of childcare responsibilities, are trying to provide care for other family members....?

You know, the group that always get the shitty end of the stick when hard times come?

The TW in the changing room is not a separate issue, it is part and parcel of the whole thing. If you care about the needs of women ffs stop supporting erasing them in law and normalising their subordination to male people while at the same time supporting a political conceit that sex isn't really a thing.

MyLittlePhonyPony: Labour treated disabled people and the unemployed dreadfully when they were in power. I'm not saying the Tories are any better.

But Labour seems to me to almost entirely ignore employment rights, people in poverty and people with disabilities that mean they can't work, in favour of identity politics. They care more about (and I don't say it isn't important, but it's not the only important thing) how many people are stopped and searched and what we do with statues of people who have been dead for centuries than they care about jobs, housing, crime, wages etc.

Starmer was nearly eviscerated by his own party when he said he had no intention of legalising cannabis. Like that's what's important?

Just general musing here, but what evidence do we have that Labour are better for women and the less well off?

I'm asking because I was given this mantra at school. Labour were in charge when I was encouraged into university. They were responsible for sending hundreds of us of to university to massage employment figures whilst we amassed personal debt, less than a year after we became adults.

When I came out of university I couldn't get a graduate due to a dearth of them. Labour were still in charge whilst I was working minimum wage jobs and if I ever got a bonus student loans chased me for it, for a degree I couldn't use.
Labour were in power the only time I have ever claimed jobseekers allowance and was treated like scum. They introduced a lot of unnecessary paperwork and half finished policies into the career I eventually settled on and made it an impossible job so I left, along with any chance of earning more.

I'm still poor. Still being chased by student loans under the conservatives.

I honestly can't see the difference but could tell you damage both parties inflicted on my sector.

So is labour actually better? Or is it just better in extreme pove

[quote Waitwhat23]Mind you, I live in Scotland where reason left the building ages ago on this. Here, under the SNP, it's a 'hate crime' to discuss this in a non respectful way in your own house. Not even in public. In your house. Madness!

Yep -

"MSPs back criminalising hate speech at the dinner table | HeraldScotland" www.heraldscotland.com/news/19077579.msps-back-criminalising-hate-speech-dinner-table/[/quote]
I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but it's only a small step from this to encouraging children to rat on their parents' private conversations. A technique used by several of the 20th Century's most oppressive regimes.

The idea on this thread seems to be that if you really care about women, it's much more important to make sure they won't have to see a transwoman in a changing room, than that they can eat, heat their homes and feed their children

What would Labour do to improve my life as a single parent full-time unpaid carer? The current shadow chancellor has repeatedly thrown out divisive rhetoric. There would be no extra money for people in my situation. Currently all I hear from them is 'working families' said approx 4 times per sentence but my 70+ hours a week wouldn't count to them, nor would the people I care for who are profoundly physically disabled after a lifetime of hard manual work. Labour haven't led on free school meals, only jumped on the bandwagon AFTER the Tories caved in to Marcus Rashford. Labour said virtually nothing about the removal of the £20 UC uplift and were completely silent about those on legacy benefits getting it at all. So please don't insult me with fairy tales about how Labour are better. They're not. Cameron and Osborne, with their malice against poor people are long gone, now we have a Thatcherite Labour run by the sillier end of the privileged middle classes.

FWIW, given that Tory by-election losses have been to the LibDem protest vote and not a meaningful move to the opposition (who have even lost their deposit), I certainly don't fancy Labour's chances in an election.

We know Boris is a habitual liar. Kier Starmer however is not, so why won’t he be honest on this issue?

Because it doesn't serve his purposes, making him a selective liar I suppose.

So let's say you have a male partner who has a drinking problem (not entirely out of the realm of possibility) and is in a state of serious physical dependency. Let's say there emerged a social movement that persuaded some people that, because they were dependent, they are actually quite similar to children, that the de facto relationship between them and their partner is one of parent and child.

He takes you to court. He succeeds in arguing that he is dependent on you. He succeeds in having his status legally changed to that of 'child' and yours to 'parent', through a one-sided legal process you have no say in. You now have parental obligations. You can be prosecuted for neglect. Social services come round to monitor your 'parenting' of the man-baby. (Nobody ever threatens you with taking your 'child' away, of course - they never explain this.)

I know this is far-fetched, but how many of us, even five years ago, thought people would be calling us 'vulva owners' to audiences of millions of people, and calling us bigots for saying we didn't like it?

Parent?
Citizen?
Person?
Human being?

If 'woman' can be made to mean 'man', why can't - as seems to happen in China with their social currency - 'person' mean 'citizen who does what is deemed best by the authorities'?

Why can't 'parent' mean 'person with responsibility for child'?

Why can't 'child' mean 'dependent'?

This is about whether it is important to retain the connection between language, concept, and underlying reality.

Exactly @tabbycatstripy @Unsure33 it's reductionist.

If "woman" means "all people" then guess how long it'll take someone wielding a red pen over budget lines to decide which things "people" don't need any more?

Or how long it'll be before "people" means "people can do intimate care for people"?

This agenda shouldn't be underestimated. Just look at Canada.

Also did anyone hear what Liz Truss said about all the “pronouns” we have to use .?

We know Boris is a habitual liar. Kier Starmer however is not,

Out of interest, how do we know what Keir Starmer is? He is only been in politics 7 years and the only position he's held is immigration and brexit - where he was a hardly a stunning success, was he? And he seems to have rowed back a lot on things he supported Corbyn over. So how truthful is he really?

All Tory voters are not posh bastards . And they don’t all live in the south anymore either .

Then you fundamentally misunderstand the issues fifteentoes

Expanding the definition of women to include men, and on the basis of their own declaration which is what Labour unacceptably want to do, destroys any hope of evidence based policy making

Want to tackle issues around woman’s pay or violence against women or the under representation of women in politics or womens poverty or improving woman’s health? How do you do that when you don’t know if you counting biological women or including men who feel like women? Whose testimony are you listening too - biological womens or men who feel like women?
And the evidence of the last years shows us that there is nothing women have that TW won’t try & get in on. Programmes to increase womens representation in politics & STEM , sport, the menopause & even still birth ffs

It’s not just that we will be forced to include TW in all women related things, it’s that they will be privileged over women because they already are. Witness how rules and guidelines everywhere are being torn up in the face of objections from women to appease them

Men no matter how they present are not women & I will not vote for any party whose MPs are hell bent in paddling such patent fucking nonsense