The SDP are left wing and against self ID

[thaigreen]

I don’t normally post but am gender critical and spend a lot of time reading here. I know many left leaning gender critical women are looking for a party to vote for and I’ve not seen the SDP mentioned. Their policies look promising. Any views?

sdp.org.uk/policies/transgender-and-biological-sex-based-rights/

I joined them a while back, I think it only costs a tenner. They don’t completely align with my views, in particular their euro scepticism, but they aren’t telling me I’m a bigot for knowing that sex is real, and they give short shrift to nonsense Id- pol posturing, in favour of actual real political standpoints, so that’s enough for me at the moment. I see it as Getting the bus that goes part of the way to where I want to go, rather than waiting for an imaginary one that goes to my actual destination, sort of thing.

Someone on here suggested them to me so I had a look. I was a bit disappointed - they are pro nuclear weapons and anti hs2 which I am opposite on. Also they say something vague about family values but don't suggest extending childcare provision or anthting specific that might actually help women become more equal in society. They have it right on biology being important but I need a bit more from them before I'd consider joining

@Swannlake

I would very much like more support for families: particularly mothers (e.g. more health visitors, children's centres reopening again because a lot shut down due to cuts. More support to help mother fleeing domestic abuse from husbands so they can live with their somewhere nice when they escape. Increased mental health support for children, a provision of support for parents / carers for children with severe MH needs. More support for single mothers (and indeed single fathers).

Agree with all that, but support for mothers fleeing domestic abuse and for single mothers is not "supportive of the family as the fundamental foundation of society". It's the opposite - acknowledgment that sometimes family structures come into conflict with the human rights of the individuals within them, and when they do we should prioritise the latter.

The kind of rhetoric this party espouses is exactly how conservatives of many kinds, in many different countries, have justified making it harder, not easier, for women to be independent of men.

Just take the tax breaks policy as a practical example. It ensures that women are better off economically staying within a family than living as independent individuals. IOW it increases their dependence on men, and provides an incentive to stay and tolerate abusive relationships, and a penalty for leaving them.

They had my vote for London Mayor and the London Assembly for that reason, rather than the Greens.

I see it as Getting the bus that goes part of the way to where I want to go, rather than waiting for an imaginary one that goes to my actual destination, sort of thing.
I like that analogy, although you've gone further than me if you've joined. I'd rather vote SDP than spoil my ballot again.

@Floisme

I see it as Getting the bus that goes part of the way to where I want to go, rather than waiting for an imaginary one that goes to my actual destination, sort of thing. I like that analogy, although you've gone further than me if you've joined. I'd rather vote SDP than spoil my ballot again.

Same

If the choices are don’t turn out to vote, spoil the ballot or vote SDP because they are the only party making a clear stand for the reality and significance of biology and taking a clear stand against identity politics then I would be glad to have that choice.

I don’t think it is very common to be in 100% agreement with a party/candidate.

We are always picking the best of a bad bunch it seems.

For me, currently, the implementation of queer theory and gender identity ideology in all our institutions and in public life is the most important and fundamental issue. As has been said before, it impacts everything else. If words lose their meanings we can’t protect children from ideas like “born in the wrong body” and the consequences of that, nor can we tell them that they can trust their own instincts and judgment about who is a man, who is a woman and the safeguarding implications of that. The authoritarian and totalitarian nature of queer theory and gender identity ideology are frankly quite terrifying. We have to get back to science, reason, freedom of speech and thought and democracy before we can begin to tackle other important issues.

‘I would very much like more support for families: particularly mothers (e.g. more health visitors, children's centres reopening again because a lot shut down due to cuts. More support to help mother fleeing domestic abuse from husbands so they can live with their somewhere nice when they escape. Increased mental health support for children, a provision of support for parents / carers for children with severe MH needs. More support for single mothers (and indeed single fathers).’

This absolutely.

I don’t think of the family as just being about two parent families. It is about recognising that the home environment in which children are raised is the foundation of society. It should be prioritised over everything else. We have too many children living in poverty, too many families stuck in refuges or b and bs because of the housing crisis.

For me, currently, the implementation of queer theory and gender identity ideology in all our institutions and in public life is the most important and fundamental issue.

Agree. And the SDP seem to be the party closest to grasping that.

And on the "family" stuff in their manifesto, sure it sounds reminiscent old-school right-wing "down with gays" or "ick, single mothers" "family values", but maybe it is just exactly what it says it is - pointing out that stable families are good for children, so there is merit in making sure policies encourage stable homes (or at least don't penalise them, eg via weird tax rules).

This is a probably them bringing it up as counterpoint to Queer Theory which is bizarrely keen on disrupting "normative" family structures. (Possibly due to pushing back on those right-wing tropes, but to a fault...)

"Agree with all that, but support for mothers fleeing domestic abuse and for single mothers is not "supportive of the family as the fundamental foundation of society". It's the opposite - acknowledgment that sometimes family structures come into conflict with the human rights of the individuals within them, and when they do we should prioritise the latter."

I would argue that "the family" in this scenario is the mum and her children. This kind of set-up in particular, when the family is getting away from their abuser, needs protecting and funding.

My concern I guess is that this political party wouldn't see the mum and kids as a family unit which needs support.

@LibertyMole

‘I would very much like more support for families: particularly mothers (e.g. more health visitors, children's centres reopening again because a lot shut down due to cuts. More support to help mother fleeing domestic abuse from husbands so they can live with their somewhere nice when they escape. Increased mental health support for children, a provision of support for parents / carers for children with severe MH needs. More support for single mothers (and indeed single fathers).’

This absolutely.

I don’t think of the family as just being about two parent families. It is about recognising that the home environment in which children are raised is the foundation of society. It should be prioritised over everything else. We have too many children living in poverty, too many families stuck in refuges or b and bs because of the housing crisis.

Yes yes! You have articulated exactly what I meant re families 😊 protecting children at home, supporting them and those who support them (through education, children's centres, would make the biggest difference in improving kids' outcomes and society in general

The point is not what you think though, it's what they think. It reads to me exactly like the kind of "traditional values" guff that the Tories were on about in the 90s, or the American Christian right use to demonise gays and single mothers. Might they mean something else by it? I suppose so, but surely you'd expect them to make that clear, given the substantial cultural precedent and context in which statements like this will be read. Meanwhile, in terms of what they've actually said:

The tax and benefits system shall offer greater protection and support for family life. Couples raising children together (comprising a basic rate tax payer and a non tax payer) will benefit from full sharing of tax allowances.

COUPLES raising children together. No mention of using the tax system to help single mothers.

The fundamental aim of national housing policy shall be to ensure that young people seeking to start a family and have children will be able to find a suitable, affordable home in which to do so.

Young PEOPLE wishing to start a FAMILY. Pretty sure that means couples wishing to do it together. No mention of housing priority for single mothers.

This is textbook social conservatism. Attempts to read it as something else just seem like wishful thinking. Although you could always contact them and ask, I suppose.

www.facebook.com/SDPhq/posts/2795731787424240

The Conservatives whine about social issues, yet do nothing to fix them.
The SDP is a party of action. We will:
🚧 Impose hard limits on net and gross immigration
👪 Promote the formation of families
🛑 End public funding of media that undermines British culture

-------

Whoa! "British culture" as defined/imposed by whom, I wonder?

It may be a slight tangent, but I thought this article in the Times from Matthew Syed was interesting www.thetimes.co.uk/article/forget-economics-and-politics-the-wests-real-problem-is-a-moral-one-jzw8sp23w. Sorry, don’t know how to do a share token. Upshot is,, the Chesham and Amersham by election may have been less about HS2 than about trust (in politics in general). I know the Lib Dem’s are worse on this issue than the Tories, but the following stuck out for me: talking about lack of trust, Syed writes

“…Banfield realised that when written into the fabric of a culture, this attitude is poisonous. It undermines the capacity of people to engage in mutually beneficial trade. It corrodes co-operation. People don’t want to sign contracts because they don’t trust judges to adjudicate impartially. In short, the absence of social trust unravels almost everything that matters about a society.”

If, generally speaking, people can’t trust politicians to tell the truth about facts (like basic biology, for example), is this what happens?

If I get my vote back (out of the country for eons) the SDP is getting my vote if they have a candidate. If not Conservative, for Liz Truss, not Boris.

I can't believe I'm writing I'd vote for Conservative as my second choice. Before I left I only ever voted labour and couldn't see myself ever not voting for them.

Democracies fall apart without trust.

We need a basic level of trust in our politicians, institutions, the judiciary, the police, the media, and our fellow citizens or else as skeleton said, democracies begin to unravel.

When so many of the above are out and out lying about facts such as basic biology we are in trouble.

Personally I still have a reasonable level of trust in my neighbours and community so that is one thread still hanging on… I think most of my fellow citizens are decent people at heart.

Sdp are from spiked/blue labour/decent fringes of ukip. If they appear gender critical it's because they think that women should occupy a different role in society from men. I am no closer to them on this issue than I am to Owen Jones. It's the same misogyny just in different clothes

Yep. They're basically a left wing UKIP.

The Workers Party of Britain is a socialist GC party and are picking up a lot of traction in the run up to the Batley and Spen by-election.

Their deputy leader is a woman as well.