Struggling with my political allegiance now and it's really bothering me

@Appalonia

Maybe it would help if you looked at what you think you share by way of beliefs with the right and ask what can be thought of as universal beliefs as a broad concept that should concern people across the political aisle and where do political parties differ. I have never understood the tribal nature of someone’s identity being so tightly fitting in with a political party because political parties generally have a pretty broad spectrum of opinions in the party. Obviously, there will be limits, of course.

How much of what you are reacting to is the authoritarian and totalitarian aspects of specific issues? Plus how much of what you are seeing also is a push back under the extremities of the issues that we are experiencing today. The magnitude of some issues may well feel overwhelming and insurmountable. I have never belonged to any political party, but I look at the current situation and I can see why some people are questioning their previous political alignment.

If you cannot discuss an issue that concerns you without being shut down, then of course you are going to respond by thinking about free speech.

Maybe the thing to remember is being accused of not conforming to a particular ideal is probably not something those who are used to it are concerned about. Meaning those who are on the right politically may well be used to be accused of many things that would be very uncomfortable to others, so one more accusation doesn’t phase them. They will have the discussion because they may well feel they have been vilified before, what is another accusation really and so they will engage.

Women feeling disillusioned about discussion being stifled when they want to point to the impacts of what is happening to them will naturally start to wonder about what else is discussion being stifled about.

The people who don’t fear having discussion makes a stark contrast to those who won’t talk about issues. Or who declare ‘both sides are toxic’ etc.

I think it may be natural to worry when you only find one group openly discussing the finer points of an issue while the group you are aligned with otherwise is silent or shutting down conversations.

I am a brown immigrant to Australia from the UK (!) and I feel more comfortable here because people here are generally quite measured in the debate and it feels a lot more nuanced here. It helps a lot that 97% of Australians can trace immigrant ancestry.

When I look at the UK, it feels like looking at a spreading contagion that began with Brexit and the goal posts are ever shifting closer to those of us who have had a long presence in the UK. Put it this way, my sister is now nervously looking into getting a second passport.

Be careful of the Lotus Eaters. Listen, sure, they do talk sense on those topics & others. However, founded by the deeply unpleasant Carl Benjamin. I'll link his RationalWiki page here.

Now, caveat: RationalWiki is a stupid site in that it lumps in stuff that everyone or most can agree is wrong with stuff like supporting Trump. But they DO have a lot of disturbing info on Benjamin in this article, complete with references so you can check accuracy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad

I'm not saying this means you shouldn't listen to the podcast : just that you should be aware the kind of person who started it off, and how this may influence it.

A lot of people have been on a journey away from the left.

I think a bunch of people at that demo will be ok people.

I just think Robinson is not the person to lead it. He is dodgy.
It is a massive ego trip. Robinson is not some free speech martyr. He wants to take the space of more deserving people. He uses other people with deserving cases to push himself up. Why does he have to make a massive appeal to supporters not to trash stuff or do criminal things?

Robinson has a very similar mindset to the most useless people on the left . Lets organise a huge demo. Lets use some of the money for ourselves. Lets attract people who are looking for a fight. Lets use opposition from other people to us to prove we are the good guys. Then keep doing it again and again with no success. Most importantly lets derail grown up political discussion into a side ally so so nothing happens. Because we don't want change we just want to have demos every so often.

Take a step back think. The Free Speech Union is not going to be at that demo. They are helping people right now. They have done way more good than Robinson has. Because real change come from collective action, practical aims, supporting legal cases. You could get involved with them.

However actually think about what you want to achieve and how it is going to be done. Say if you are serious about bringing down immigration the only way it is going to happen is through political power. That means one of three major political parties with at least some members thinking that way - Labour, the Conservatives or Reform.

Check them out and join one of them. If that is what you want to do.

Obviously all those parties have flaws and other policies you might disagree with. Yet that is how change happens politically.

Or if that doesn't appeal stay outside and support groups that actually do stuff and win. Contrast For Women Scotland with TR. They had a demo yesterday not for no particular reason, but to celebrate and to keep the Scottish government scared. Because they managed to prove legally that human beings have two sexes and it matters. Practical women, no ego trips, no nonsense. Changed not only Scotland, but UK and the world. A million times better than Robinson.

Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't have to be am all or nothing situation.

I suspect the connection between centrists & the far right is they are considered a gateway to the far right in that their voting patterns effectively usher in far right policies. The US being a prime example. Trump's 'free speech' promises that targeted centrists voters that previously didn't care for him came with the erosion of reproductive rights & racist immigrant policies not to mention reneging on free speech commitment by targeting universities & the media for theirs.

I'm not saying centrists don't genuinely desire a 'middle way' but the results speak for themselves.

Exactly this.

Occasionally agreeing with a rather unpleasant person over facts of reality doesn’t mean you have to endorse their other views.

Everyone is talking about immigration at the moment, primarily because the far right has succeeded in whipping everyone up into a storm.

And while I think it’s fine to ask questions about immigration policy, so much of the rhetoric seems to be largely based on “England is for English people”, “taking back our borders”, and “reclaiming our flag”. In other words, it’s just generalised xenophobia and racism dressed up as faux concern for economics.

I think it’s possible to be left wing and still have concerns about immigration - but they’ll come from a very different perspective than Yaxley-Lennon and his vile pals. And they won’t be based on a general disdain for anyone who’s either a) from overseas or b) non-white.

Also, you mention watching interviews, but leaders do tend to be charismatic! And they often have a knack of spinning their policies to make them sound proportionate and fair…until you start to dig into them in more detail.

It sounds a bit like you’ve found yourself in a right-wing echo chamber OP. I think no matter what your watching/reading/listening to, I think it’s imperative to sharpen your critical thinking skills to see if the facts are being spun or whether salient details are being left out.

I’m centre left. I find very little to the right that appeals as generally I find them to be elitist and intolerant, and despite their views on sex-based reality, they’re usually pretty misogynistic too.

I ruled out the Lib Dems immediately because of their inability to define or protect women, but I think if that wasn’t the case, I’d be interested in taking a proper look at their policies. I really liked Ed Davey’s measured and fair response to the Angela Davey property debacle today. I think he’s probably a really decent, principled man. But given they seem fairly entrenched in TWAW, they’re not worth a second glance.

Lots of GC women are politically homeless and I think it’s going to be hard for us to ever trust the left wing again, even if that is our natural home.

Here's more data that details prisoners & socioeconomic background link in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zdwwt39/revision/4

Yep, it might help if you read it. From the report:

"The poor are more than twice as likely to fear burglary & rape - and three times as likely to fear attacks, robbery and car crime. This fear is justified, as there are three and a half times as many criminals living in the 20% most deprived areas as in the 20% least deprived areas."

As to the relevance of your question, poverty being associated with crime coupled with proven massive government incompetency are no doubt major factors contributing to the 'grooming gang' crimes.

@Appalonia "if they are right on this, does that mean that they're right on other issues too?"

um, sometimes you will agree with them and sometimes you won't. It's not that deep. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Does it really shock you so much that they might actually be correct on certain things?

and if so, why?

It's a normal part of life that we meet lots of people, or encounter lots of people through media, with whom we agree on some things and disagree on others.

It feels as if you're saying that news to you?

Have I interpreted that correctly? I think my head is gonna explode with the madness of that

However, I noticed that another poster has talked about the friend working in the law who won't even listen to alternative viewpoints. How mad is that?!

maybe there's more people living in echo Chambers than I realised.

Join the Communist Party of Britain, their stance on gender is very clear. They have also been there during the miners strike as leaders in the NUM. I was disillusioned with the SWP and other leftists and found political home in the CPB.

Heres their recent statement on the issue:

Joint Statement from the Political Committee of the Communist Party, the Central Committee of the Young Communist League, the CP & YCL Women’s Commissions on the UK Supreme Court ruling that “sex” means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010.
We welcome the Supreme Court’s clarification that “sex” means biological sex in the Equality Act 2010 in the case For Women Scotland Ltd (Appellant) v The Scottish Ministers (Respondent) 16 April 2025.
The Supreme Court judgement was decided on the basis that the only coherent legal interpretation of the provisions defined in the Equality Act relating to sex discrimination was by reference to biological sex, upholding women’s legal right to single-sex provision in employment, education facilites, sports, prisons, etc.
This materialist outcome corroborates our view that “sex” must mean biological sex for the purposes of the Act and any other interpretations would negate its single sex statutory protections.
We reject any notion that the Supreme Court ruling was influenced by, or issued as a result of, a transphobic political climate and note Lord Hodge’s remark when delivering the judgement – that it should not be seen as victory of one side over another.
We oppose misrepresentations of the ruling causing anxiety and division. Trans people continue to have protection against discrimination and harassment within the Equality Act and “In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived to be a woman.”
We reiterate that efforts must be made to improve resourcing within the current system for trans people to access the health and welfare services they need across Britain and that the Communist Party will continue to call for these.
For Women Scotland, in winning their case against the Scottish government, have provided legal clarification for women and girls in the fight to assert and defend single sex provision in Britain, and we commend them. ENDS.
END.

Many of us are currently politically homeless. I think the next GE is going to be brutal, and whereas lots of us used to stick to a particular party because of core beliefs, there’s going to be a lot of us actually studying the manifestos more closely for each party next time.

Refusing to answer the question. Well, I didn't see that coming.

And you apparently haven't read the Civitas report either.

I’m not saying this as a judgy fxxx for what little it’s worth.

I find it interesting (genuinely) that you watch The Lotus Eaters but find contemporary Tommy Robinson unpalatable. Carl Benjamin et al say some pretty spicy stuff. In fact, I’ve heard Carl take some stances that make Tommy seem moderate by comparison.

Is it just TRs criminal convictions which makes the difference for you there?

I find your post interesting because you’re admitting to a pretty much full pendulum swing from one side of the Overton Window to the other. Fwiw, credit to you for that honesty with yourself. Changing your conclusions in light of things you perceive differently to what you did prior is harder in practice than it is in theory.

My one challenging question would be do you think that maybe you have been lead down a path by the algorithm? I find that if I engage with a little conservative content, I get fed a lot more of it to the point where I stop seeing the left wing content, including the strongest/more sensible arguments from said camp?

(I’m not using conservative as a pejorative here. I’m a mix of progressive and conservative, depending on the issue - I don’t subscribe to package belief sets)

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/povertyandcrime.pdf

That immigrants in some areas commit more crime is a function of poverty

Please do explain how grooming gangs are a function of poverty

The Trans nonsense has tainted the left. We need to be GC. Farage and the right wing MSM is not the answer. We need a new left. How we get there I don't know.

We have the same issue in Australia. I don't think its racists to ask the question about the benefits & costs of immigration. It gets racist tho when migrants are assumed blame for increased crime, housing crisis & economic downturn as many of these race baiters suggest because their real problem isn't economics or crime but cultural loss.

The facts are given the birthrates are below replacement, there's a necessity for immigrants to maintain economic growth. That resources are strained as a result is a consequence of Government incompetence & blaming immigrants only distracts from the real causes.

That immigrants in some areas commit more crime is a function of poverty that many waves of immigrants historically experienced that's not about inherent traits or culture.

But should the government do better better in terms of character vetting, skills selection relevant to needs & resource creation? You betcha. But how this is framed matters & supporting Reform or Tommy Robinson isn't where they are going.

Some might say 'who cares about living standards when our culture is being eroded'. As a first generation female of Italian heritage I can confirm all those sexist vestiges from my parents were gone with my birth. Subsequent generations preferring liberty & capitalism is a fact.

I first encountered OJ when he was 17. He was an arrogant little scrote even then.

I feel I would have more in common with Lionel shriver (who I’ve met and enjoyed her books) than I would with Owen jones.

Could have written your post op. Always felt I was centrist / left but the left and their media response to the cologne attacks opened my eyes. Then the trans debacle. I feel like I’ve seen through them. Feel very cyclical about them. Don’t see myself right wing but if we aren’t left wing then what are we?