Is Keir Starmer right?

[AdamRyan]

Today he called the Conservatives "the political wing of the flat earth society" following Liz Truss' comments about the deep state in the US.

I am a big starmer fan, so want to sanity check my opinion, which is that the Conservatives seem to have bought into a lot of conspiracy theories recently, such as "no go" areas in Birmingham, London being "controlled by Islamists", the civil service being run by transactivists as well as Truss' comments.

Or do you think this is a smear and the Conservatives are being reasonable?

If I had a third option I'd also include a "meh - not interested" option for people

Video for people who want to listen to what Starmer said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-68418502?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65df29c746578322549bdd92%26Watch%3A%20Starmer%20says%20Tories%20are%20%E2%80%98political%20wing%20of%20flat%20earth%20society%E2%80%99%262024-02-28T12%3A52%3A33.349Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:091e6916-4b3d-4198-adef-cf8a7b9e76bb&pinned_post_asset_id=65df29c746578322549bdd92&pinned_post_type=share

YABU - the Conservatives are not getting sucked into conspiracies, this is a smear

YANBU - the Conservatives need a large consignment of tin foil ASAP

And? Just because you may feel out of place does not make anywhere a no go area. Unless people,, of whatever race, are actively preventing us from entering a place, we go where we like. I don't know Birmingham but I know London very well. If you have no go areas in your perception that is something for you to deal with, it doesn't require national panic and exploitation by self-interested politicians.

Nobody is saying there aren't areas mostly inhabited by a specific ethnic group (mostly white, given the demographics). The phrase ‘no go areas’ is used by racists to suggest white people can’t go into areas which are largely Muslim (or ‘Islamist controlled’ as they like to put it). If you want to use the phrase and make people assume that’s what you mean, go ahead. Insisting that’s not how you use it is a bit pointless.

No-go areas to me are areas where there are high crime rates - muggings, attacks and sexual assaults etc. Areas with majority minority ethnic populations don’t automatically fall into those areas ime. I know Birmingham better than I know London but I don’t think there’s much evidence that my experience isn’t transferable.

That this issue has been linked primarily to conversations around protests supporting Palestine is an attempt to make a false connections and manipulate people’s prejudices and fears.

In my experience of being born and living in London for 40 years is that the peopoe who mainly suffer at the hands of ' Islamists' are other Muslims who dont conform to the behaviour norms that this minority group want them to conform to, or suffer atvtheir hands. Forced marriages, FGM, kerping girlscout ofcschool etc absolutely shoukd Anyone else who ventures into Bethnal Green ( presumably the Islamic no go areas people talk about) are more likely to suffer extreme harassment from restaurant owners wanting you to come in and buy food from them.

A majority of Conservative party members now believe that there are “no go zones” in various European cities- meaning that the “zones” are controlled and policed by Muslims enforcing Sharia law. Even mainstream US, right wing news sources have reported that areas of London are controlled by religious police who will “beat up” anyone who isn’t wearing suitable attire.

Plain and obvious lies but, unfortunately, a lot of people are taken in by them.

The sort of people who believe there are "no go" areas in London and Birmingham are the sort of people who never go to London and Birmingham. I get fkin annoyed with it. Its not real but we have to pretend it is because the DM says so

No one has suggested trans people shouldn't have a place in society. Just that WOMEN AND GIRLS should have place in society, and a right to exist in our safe single sex spaces. Why is that so hard for people to accept? Why do some seem to think women and girls aren't even human and shouldn't have rights?

Personally society already spends too much time prioritising penises

Um, ya think?!?? That's kind of our point!

This thread is about conspiraloons in the Conservative party. The only way the trans debate is relevant is if you buy into the kind of conspiracy theory covered here, where promoting LGBTQ is a way of eroding family values so we are at the mercy of the state.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0h24lnp?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I found this episode pretty eye opening. I've seen the Conservatives allude to various conspiracy theories enough times to think four possibilities could be at play:

1. they are actively spreading and promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt in the voter base and attract a vote for themselves as the "strong party who will stand up against the threat" (a typical Fascist tactic)
2. they are aware of misinformation and conspiracies and are actively "dog whistling" to attract those voters while doing nothing to address misinformation (cynical and dangerous). I think this is less likely because the recent "no go areas" is so blatant it seems to go beyond using conspiracy theories to creating them
3. the leaders believe the conspiracy theories and think they are being honest and doing the right thing, a la Andrew Bridgen. (Terrifyingly incompetent).
4. the conspiracy theories about 15 minute cities, replacement theory, great reset are true and by not believing them I'm the problem (obviously I think option 4 is wrong but I would, wouldn't I?)

Ooh and also there are plenty of people over on FWR suggesting trans people don't have a place in society. That is what insisting on "TMAW and TWAM", refusing to use pronouns, always referring to people by their birth sex and repealing the GRA actually means. And that's the majority view over on FWR.

I have no interest in discussing further but its factually not true to say "noone has suggested trans people shouldn't have a place in society". That's exactly what they are doing, that's why people endlessly bring up "at least the Conservatives know what a woman is" and I say that as a gender critical, radical feminist myself.

The western world has been ruled by the political right (socially conservative, economically liberal) for about the last seventy years, and it does appear to be people on the right who are the most likely to believe in conspiracy theories like The Great Reset and The Great Replacement. Maybe because it's their kind of people who are in power, so the only possible explanation, when things go wrong, is a nefarious left-wing conspiracy.

So it's not surprising when tory mps are like this, or when the tory leadership lean into this sort of thinking. But it's a sign of desperation, and disappointing to tory voters that I know, because they just want to see clear policies argued on their own merits.

People on the left don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why everything is a bit shit. They can just blame the people in power, and always champion the underdog, even when it doesn't make sense. That's why you get Labour mps who are anti-Zionists or TRAs. Because there are groups of people whose vulnerability and oppression they literally cannot see.

Of course both major parties are full of rank misogynists, so we need a further explanation of why the tories are so sensible on trans. I don't think they buy into the US Republicans' wilder ideas about an international Jewish-Marxist conspiracy to destroy the family, led by George Soros and the Pritzkers. It's enough that they don't like fancy new ideas that look a bit woke. And Kemi Badenoch clearly understands the problem, whether you think she's a feminist or not.

So, @AdamRyan, why should I vote Labour? They're wrong about this, and very authoritarian with it.

Ooh and also there are plenty of people over on FWR suggesting trans people don't have a place in society. That is what insisting on "TMAW and TWAM", refusing to use pronouns, always referring to people by their birth sex and repealing the GRA actually means.

Sounds like you've got your own conspiracy theory here* *@AdamRyan. Best of luck popularising it. I hear Lee Andersson has a lot more free time now if you want to brainstorm ideas together.

If we're going to descend into culture wars, I want to know why someone who has to occasionally hear the wrong pronoun seems to receive more resources than someone who permanently can't walk. Or see. Or talk. Or indeed suffer from any real disability that society struggles with.

This

Couldn't care less who you vote for. Just very very bored now of the constant suggestion that Starmer is somehow as much of a conspiraloon as various Tories. And that every single political thread ends up about trans. Tedious

Couldn't care less who you vote for. Just very very bored now of the constant suggestion that Starmer is somehow as much of a conspiraloon as various Tories. And that every single political thread ends up about trans. Tedious

I don't think he is as much as a "conspiraloon" as some Tories, but I think if he's going to use that as an attack line, he should be squeaky clean and evidence based in his own ideas.

The two things are not entirely comparable though, are they? GI is more like a religion, that some parties have swallowed whole, and that's not in the same category as, say, being suspicious of fifteen minute cities, or calling the civil service The Blob and the judiciary Enemies of the People.

So I can see where @AdamRyan is coming from, and disappointed that she doesn't care who I vote for, because my question was not rhetorical. I live in a constituency where Con and Lab are neck-and-neck, and I am open to persuasion!

@theilltemperedclavecinist I completely agree they are not identical situations, but there are enough similarities that people who are against GI are going to raise an eyebrow when Starmer calls out conspiracy theorists.

Well, I mostly dislike the childish tone of Commons debate, but what Starmer said hit the target. And we might have analysed it half to death in the light of Labour's trans policy, but he would have known (if he thought about it) that the one comeback not available to Sunak (after his previous gaffe) was anything involving penises.

All a bit evanescent really.

Sorry for being grumpy, I get a lot of people calling me a labour shill so I was trying to shut that down before it started

In your situation I would vote Labour over Conservative, because I prefer Labour policies on nearly everything. On trans issues specifically, despite what the "I'm voting conservative" brigade say, they don't actually have any policy at all. In fact worse than that, they say one thing in public and another in government. At least Labour have been clear what their policy is.

I also think the Conservatives are finished, they can't seem to govern for shit at the moment and I'm not sure why that would change after an election.

Plus for me the fascist tone of debate (e.g. populist policies, appealing to emotion over fact, hyping up fear of "the other") really scares me.

For all Sunak’s “of course women don’t have penises” talk, that doesn’t correspond with the current legal reality in the UK.

Now that Labour, under Starmer, have backed away from self-ID, as the Tories did, the only real difference between Labour and the Conservatives that I can see on the issue is that Labour would change the 2-doctor requirement, for obtaining a gender recognition certificate, to one doctor.

Is there any other difference that I’m missing, here? Or is Sunak just saying the magic words needed to appease gender critical people without having anything of an material significance to back it up?

The latter. And they’re all lapping it up.

Yes, agree, the latter with a sprinkle of "Kemi understands it"

I don't much care about the GRA or GRCs. For me, the real harm comes from the EA2010. It could be made even worse by the introduction of hate crime or conversion therapy legislation. Or massively improved by government forcing an interpretation that says that women-only spaces are not forbidden, and are sometimes necessary to avoid discrimination under the Act. This is already true, but institutions are being steered in the opposite direction, and it would take a very long time and a lot of gardening to sue every one of them.

The Equality Act that protects women from being paid less than men? Or prevents landlords putting up signs saying "no blacks, no Irish"?

The Equality Act that means disabled people can access public services? The one that stops people being sacked when they get diagnosed with cancer?

Why on earth would you think getting rid of that is necessary?