Reasons for not moving right like young men

And are these trans politicians speaking out against medical experimentation on children. Children are the most vulnerable category of all

On old school left wing issues the overton window has shifted massively right. So the austerity ideas in place since 2008 are now mainstream whereas before they would be considered very hardcore Tory. Whilst even the incredibly milquetoast ideas of Labour are being described as far left by some of the UK media. When before they would be incredibly liberal/labour right or conservative left. And the further left parties (Green etc) are really putting forward moderate left positions.
Social issues are a different matter and a mixed bag.
So I don't think it's fair to say woman have veered left while men have stayed on track. It's much more complicated than that and just looking at voting intentions doesn't tell you why people are voting for eg Green or Reform. Its not fair to say all women voting reform are being hoodwinked by their pro trans policies. There are a thousand other reasons to vote Green. Andy more than to say men voting Reform are doing it because they hate women. It's just quite nonsense local pseudo-psychologising. The other side must have irrational/psychological reasons for voting. While my side are motivated by logic like me.

We are looking at the right internationally finding excuses for shooting citizens in the street in the great free democracy

Why are you continually assuming that what is happening in the USA will happen here? If the main parties fall here, the Greens are just as likely to take power as Reform.

And, while we're at it, most of Europe is further to the Right than the UK. Why don't you catastrophise about them?

Right and left in politics exist because they are fundamentally different ideologies; the centre isn't a new ideology but draws from the other two.

The right stands for hierarchical thinking, small government, deregulation, lower taxes, social conservatism.
The left stands for community thinking, social safety nets, higher taxes, more government involvement.
The left wing system of social housing, trade unions, free to access healthcare & schooling, and a benefits safety net is one way to create a stable society, conservatism is the right wing, and women tend to realise that left wing policies benefit the less well advantaged.

Authoritarianism is an automatic reaction to a perceived threat. Its a survival strategy which can work for a small group dealing with an emergency, but in modern times & complex situations can be maladaptive and create risks; people can be too scared to act independently in a crisis, a society can be so rigid it stagnates, and cannot adapt to change.

The current left is gravitating away from community thinking and towards authoritarianism, and this is happening because purity spirals have replaced analysis and debate.
(A purity spiral is ... a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and ... expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished - Wikipedia)

The question is, is this a reaction to a perceived threat, or is it a deliberate strategy of entryism?

Not at all @Warmlight1 I consider we have a responsibility to look at all angles and I would love a really big debate on women and gender. We miss an opportunity if we don't consider our part in the growth of trans ideology. If we don't debate, then this will happen again and we still wont have any answers

Moving right like young men? Latest evidence shows young men's views haven't shifted much. The biggest shift is young women moving left, to the batty end of ideology. This would back up the trans support and how it grew so rapidly. Women holding most jobs in teaching and EDI jobs.

I think there needs to be a major debate on women being hoodwinked and how easy it was.

Sorry, have gone back to thread title, had read some interesting stuff but can't find. Will try and find links

The Victorians built a lot of that great infrastructure by paying large groups of manual labourers low wages..often those workers were migrants from abroad (Irish navies). Also, there were less safety standards and less public ability to block building said infrastructure. I don't think Greenbelt was a thing then.

That's not really correct. Other than, for instance, the Irish navvies digging canals, most of the infrastructure works required skilled labour, such as with the construction of schools, sewers, railways. A bricklayer would, for instance, be earning between two and two-and-a-half times the rate of a basic labourer (and you would have a lot of bricklayers on these infrastructure projects). Most labour was local, with the exception of the highly-skilled (stonemasons) or very low skilled (navvies) who would follow the work around the country. And remember that, in the nineteenth century, the Irish weren't migrants from abroad; Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

It is true that safety standards were lower, though these projects were neither terribly dangerous in absolute or relative terms; it was far more dangerous to work in the mines, or as a sailor during the period. Urban green belts did not exist, but not really significant for these conversations, as it more specifically applies to urban development than infrastructure builds; that it ran through the London green belt did not significantly hinder the construction of the M25 in the 1970s and 1980s, for instance.

Another way of looking at it is that governing a modern state is hard. So is delivering big infrastructure projects. The Victorians were world leaders in design, manufacturing etc. We like to think that we're at least as good at everything as previous generations but maybe we're just not: maybe previous generations had better and cleverer leaders.

The Victorians built a lot of that great infrastructure by paying large groups of manual labourers low wages..often those workers were migrants from abroad (Irish navies). Also, there were less safety standards and less public ability to block building said infrastructure. I don't think Greenbelt was a thing then.

We absolutely could recreate that now, by hiring foreign workers to come and work for a pittance thus driving down overall labour costs, and by getting rid of regulations and by ignoring complaints about tearing up the countryside etc.

The problem is, the first parts of it directly contradict Tempest Tosts (fair) point about too much migration directly undercutting wages. And the latter part would upset a lot of people who are already upset at Labours comparatively modest proposals to change planning law.

I do agree there is elite failure. I think that successive governments have got used to legislating in the hope public sentiment will catch up with the legislation rather than the other way round. But I think casting elite failure as a failure to be able to act like the Victorians is complicated because it depends on what you actually want from your elites. Do you want strong leaders who will ride roughshod over public sentiment to get things done, or the opposite. My opinion is we have had too much of the first option not too little

That's true to an extent about migration. But it's also true that one of the issues people had with freedom of movement in the EU was that there was no control over who came and worked here from Europe. One of the selling points of Brexit was that "we could have a points based immigration system like Australia" where people with skills that were in short supply in the UK could come, rather than just letting people with an EU passport in. And that's exactly what DID happen. And so we had larger numbers of people coming from commonwealth countries with skills in plumbing etc. But that caused further frustration because now people from non EU countries are coming and driving down wages in plumbing/roofing etc...
But we have a points based migration system now...

Have read many things pretty much confirming our leaders can only do performative politics, or appear to be dynamic and epoch making by one signature human rights win per premiership.
Cameron had same sex marriage.
May had domestic slavery.
Johnson interestingly got things done, like vaxx rollout, and Brexit, so it is still possible to force change.
Truss had her lettuce.
Sunak had FE Free Speech and the Article 20 win against Sturgeon, would have had banning smoking and a version of military service.
Starmer has Assisted Suicide and votes for 16-17s.
Other than Johnson with vaccines and Brexit, and Sunak with FE Free speech, very little else from the last 15 years amounts to a hill of beans re unblocking the British state.
Farage will be promising a lot...
And it may be that if he communicates his planned changes as the biggest overhaul of the state since Thatcher, he'll catch the zeitgeist.

The mainstream political parties of the UK have proven themselves to be fundamentally unable to govern in an effective way in recent years

Elite failure is a real thing. Nothing works. The Victorians built amazing infrastructure and currently the UK can't even maintain the infrastructure it's got, never mind improve it.

We've got the biggest state and the highest tax burden since WW2, and fuck knows what the money's being spent on because improvements in services are not obvious. I'm not yet seeing a viable plan coming out of the right, but the left isn't thinking beyond tax more, spend more and have an even bigger state (whoever replaces Starmer will almost certainly take that line) or Green theories about degrowth.

The two legacy parties have so discredited themselves that it's possible one or both of them could disappear. That's symptom rather than cause, but given how durable they've been, it's a big symptom.

It's not all a UK thing either. We're probably late to the party if you look at European dysfunction.

It's also a way to send a message for many. How else are voters supposed to influence parties who continue to support policies they don't want?

I used to know a fellow who didn't vote at all because he thought that the main parties were simply representing a set of barely differerntiated policies to give an illusion of choice to the electorate. Like a mum offering a toddler the two things she's willing to accept, but certainly not anything she doesn't want the child to have.

Which is reasonable for a parent but not in politics which is meant to serve the voters.

At the time, I thought his opinion was extreme, I'm not so sure now.

As for people's real beefs- well I'm not with you on that. I know the beefs because I pay the same bills, access the same services, same schools-
I'm mystified why anyone would imagine Nigel has those solutions. All they wants to do is stop the state supporting the vulnerable. Generally. And they are telling us this.

I do not believe that Nigel Farage and Reform are the solutions to any of the problems which we are facing in the modern world. But, if not, who is? The mainstream political parties of the UK have proven themselves to be fundamentally unable to govern in an effective way in recent years, so it is wholly understandable as to why people might look for alternatives, such as Reform or the Green Party. Whilst I would never vote for Reform, I can understand the psychology of hope, desperation, and disenchantment which drives people towards the party.

That's an interesting take on it, given that one of the main effects of large amounts of immigration is to suppress wages, and avoid the need for government investment in things like training. Which are generally significant concerns of less well off people.

Slapping the term "racist" on people who feel the effects of that is a very clever move by those who benefit from cheaper services and lower taxes.

Which rights do men have that women don't?

How are you defining 'Gender Critical Ideology'?

Gender critical "ideology". Just love it.

This is an excellent example of how cultism compromises critical thinking skills. Whilst gender critical ideology has some very good points like all ideologies it's vulnerable to purity extremism where zealots will get into bed with anyone who tell them what they want to hear despite having a long history of being of serious harm to them.

Pot kettle springs to mind