Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

[Manteiga]

And International Trade Secretary. I'd have preferred to see her as Secretary of State for Education in addition to Minister for Women and Equalities, but this is good news.

twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1584957913059454976

I don't divide humans into the disgusting who are beneath me and should be shunned, have lesser rights than decent people, spat on, raped, killed, excluded, etc, and humans who are Like Me and should have all the good things.

Not liking or agreeing with someone does not make me decide they're subhuman and I should join with others in my gang and bully and harm them. Because I'm not eight.

And obviously the fact that the tories are digusting (and authoritarian and nasty and cruel and economically illiterate and anti-democratic) doesn't mean that they won't get my vote at the next election.
and here we go again. This thread is like Groundhog Day

Yep. I am mostly going to ignore anyone making this kind of judgement, going forward.

Economically left and right are different things. But the political map also goes authoritian / liberal.

Many tories are the same level of authoritarian as Labour just right wing rather than left wing variants.

Gender criticals vary. Some are more authoritarian than others but most fall into a Liberal area of the political map. This includes some on the left and some on the right.

The forced teaming reduces politics to a left / ring wing narrative which completely ignores the liberal / authoritarian axis.

What we are seeing is that right and left wing liberals may have more in common than people from their own left or right wing.

This is where the corruption of the word Liberal (capital L) into meaning a set prescribed set of values matters and is misleading. (also see 'progressive').

Right wing liberals are as different from nazis as left wing liberals. Left wing authoritarians inhabit the same political space as stalinists. Right wing authoritarians inhabit the same political space as fascists. There are 4 tribes. Not two.

I have to say, I don't love the "on behalf of" element in this quote.

I don't know that AD was intending it that way at all, I think at least in part she means that feminism is supposed to be keeping the needs of women as a group in mind, not just some types of women.

But I find it tends to give some feminists the sense that it is ok for them to speak on behalf of women who have different views than they do, while at the same time dismissing those views as being "wrong" somehow.

It's the same kind of dismissive smugness that seems to infect the left generally. Fighting for the good of women (or any group) as a class is great, but it very easily tips into claiming to be the voice of that class without representing the actual views of real, rather than abstract, women. And that ends up in many ways disenfranchising those voices.

We've seen the same thing with other lobbies, the LGB being perhaps the most spectacular, but also we see how black conservatives are treated, and it's similar with other groups.

Being a Conservative does not mean "by definition" fighting for the rights of the rick elite over others.

This is hyperbolic nonsense which some on the left seem to have simply accepted without question, and I suspect it goes a long way to explaining some of the bizarre political tribalism that happens, and the name calling and lack of political analysis.

If the current screwing around with identity politics on the left, and gender ideology specifically, accomplishes nothing else it would be really great if it makes some people step back and learn what kinds of principles do underlie political conservatism, rather than this simplistic caricature.

But I find it tends to give some feminists the sense that it is ok for them to speak on behalf of women who have different views than they do, while at the same time dismissing those views as being "wrong" somehow.

Yes.

In reality we SHOULD sometimes be agreeing with Tories and sometimes with Labour members. Because thats HEALTHY and how things happen in the real world.

Exactly.

*Being a Conservative does not mean "by definition" fighting for the rights of the rick elite over others.

This is hyperbolic nonsense which some on the left seem to have simply accepted without question, and I suspect it goes a long way to explaining some of the bizarre political tribalism that happens, and the name calling and lack of political analysis.

If the current screwing around with identity politics on the left, and gender ideology specifically, accomplishes nothing else it would be really great if it makes some people step back and learn what kinds of principles do underlie political conservatism, rather than this simplistic caricature.*

I agree. I overheard some 6th form students discussing politics the other day and they were discussing left vs right attitudes to tax cuts. They genuinely thought the only reason why tories would want lower taxes were because they and their mates had shares in companies that would benefit. There was no possibly of any other motivation. I was taken aback.

What other motivation for cutting taxes could there be? It hurts all of us who rely on the NHS, the education system, the police, it hurts the poorest who have fallen on hard times and are dependent on benefits. It enables the very rich to get richer and hurts everyone else.

I suppose I am socially conservative and economically on the left.

I am economically on the left too, I'm happy to pay more in taxes if it will result in better public services and help for the most vulnerable BUT I understand the economic argument in favour of lower taxes...!

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anger-as-mp-who-suggested-cutting-abortion-time-limit-is-made-minister-for-women/ar-AA13vIjr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=af0ca7de70284591967a666f2eeebfad

How come there is a Minister for Women now, apparently as well as a Minister for Women & Equalities? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Maybe people don't trust the state to use those taxes effectively to provide the services that they think are necessary. Maybe they think that education or health or whatever would be better if they could make their own decisions about funding priorities. In some cases they are right. If I could control how my taxes were spent, they certainly wouldn't be going on Stonewall's Diversity Champions scheme.

The Minister for Women and Equalities is senior to the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Women, and the Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Equalities.

As for the actual subject of the article, it's another case which probably shouldn't be taken at face value. There aren't many places in the world where there are no limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be carried out. Therefore it is necessary to set a limit. In the UK that limit is at 24 weeks, which is unusually long - the most common limit is 12 weeks. It is entirely proper that an MP should suggest that the limit be reviewed in the light of advances in medical science. On reviewing it may be found that the limit is in fact still appropriate and that it is most other countries who are out of step, or it may not. There is nothing wrong with asking that question.

Try reframing - if you took your idea to it's logical conclusion, you could justify taxing people to any level so long as it produced good services. Which I imagine you would think was a bad idea! So there is some sweet spot, or maybe most likely a range of tax rates that might be appropriate. The problem is how to figure out what that might be.

On the side of lower tax rates there are two main arguments you get, I think, one ethical and one pragmatic.

The ethical one is that the money people earn from their labour comes from their work, and while it's just for them to pay the costs of services the state provides, it is simply unjust for the state to see that money as it's own.

But the pragmatic element is probably more important. The issue is - where does the money that is being taxed come from in the first place? Well, it comes from productivity. And the argument is that if taxes are too high, it will tend to reduce productivity, and therefore you will actually have less of a tax base.

There is also an argument around autonomy. When the state makes a choice to support something, it effectively is making a choice for everyone. Lets say state funded childcare, there is a totally funded spot for all children over age one. So the state here is taking tax dollars, which affects people's disposable income, and a this means almost all kids will go into that care. With the economic environment that creates, parents won't financially be able to choose between different models as they might in a private system, and may also not be able to choose to have a parent stay home.

If you have a principle of maximizing autonomy at the lowest effective level, you will always want to query funding state programs that will end up determining how many people shape their lives.

I'm sure there are others but those are more common issues people have. The question of productivity is probably the central one though.

Thank you for your response Mangy.

I agree that taxed money should not be seen as belonging to the state but belonging to the people. It is a responsibility on the government to see it that way and spend it wisely with the interests of the people in mind. In this respect I trust Labour over Conservative as it seems that Conservatives are intent on allowing private companies to profit from our taxes whereas I hope that Labour would reduce the involvement of private companies in public services so that all the money that goes to the NHS or the council could be put to work for the people of this country instead of lining the pockets of the already wealthy.

Most of us, even if our taxes were reduced couldn’t pay for private healthcare and private education and so on so we’d actually be much worse off if we kept a bit more tax but had to pay for public services. It is in our interests to pool our resources and work together for these things and have the kind of society where we don’t walk around our cities see people on the streets homeless with untreated mental health conditions and think to ourselves but for the Grace of God there go I, or my loved ones. I have colleagues, friends and neighbours who are in dire circumstances at the moment due to all the years of austerity.

Regarding autonomy, I hear you, particularly in the case of childcare since I am a believer in the family, in the importance of human relationships for human happiness in the importance of the early years in child development for later resilience and good mental health. I think that as nature intended mothers and young children benefit from being together most of the time. Very counter cultural I know and it is hard for a mother who wants to be home with her children until they start school to do that now. There isn’t real freedom on this choice because most families are dependent on two incomes to survive. Was it childcare provision that did this, I’m not sure but your argument sounds plausible to me. The thing is the Labour and Conservatives are both more interested in money than family and community. They are both chasing productivity and growth rather than human happiness and fulfilment. They both want women to return to work ASAP after having a baby and contribute to the money go round, paying someone to do childcare rather than mothers looking after their own children is better for GDP.

The idea though, I think is that we as a country choose our values and the nature of democracy is that the majority wins. So the majority wants childcare from an early age that is what we all get and those of us who want to be with our children make huge sacrifices to do it or perhaps are unable to do it at all.

Productivity is an interesting argument, I think though if taxes are too low and public services become dysfunctional and there is not enough council housing for families who need it as is pretty much the case in the UK now then helping out the least well off and taxing the most well off will surely be of greater benefit to the economy, if the poorest are enabled to buy food and clothing and petrol all the basics, maybe even a few luxuries like family outings or meals out for special occasions, then wouldn’t that increase productivity more than allowing a billionaire to keep an extra £10, 000 in tax?

What great posts, thank you both

Good posts, we all feel comfortable somewhere tending towards middle, eg if you make the spectrum go to the full stretch where state does everything.

I prefer around the centre but at some point the state feels onerous and intrusive and I feel comfortable with more personal freedom. I want some services of course. Looking at government expenditure recently most of it goes on what is called social protection. So pensions and welfare. The latter is probably where change could happen. In work benefits, people working etc. Pensions are more difficult to deal with we are an ageing population.

There is an American entrepreneur called Yvon Chouinard.

I suspect few of you will have heard of him, but his brand Patagonia is really well known.

Anyway he has an had an unusual philosophy in terms of running his business especially for an American.

Basically he sees investment in people and their families worthwhile, especially for good workers. And this is particularly true of women.

He has written at length about this, and some other companies do now employ some of these practices, though not to the same degree.

His argument is good workers are hard to find. Women don't tend to be valued either because the are viewed as less economic due to having maternity leave / needing childcare. But the cost of having to constantly hire and replace was high and time consuming. And this was without factoring training costs and loss of knowledge. He also found that women when they felt they had a good job, were loyal to the company and tended to stay there for a long time.

Thus he tried to find ways to retain staff long term. This included free childcare provision on site where possible. This meant that women might take maternity leave, but he increased the numbers of returners to work and retention of staff. In reducing staff turnover, he found that the provision of childcare, over time, effectively paid for itself. His staff were happier and better and this in turn increased productivity.

Chouinard demonstrated in the real world that employee happiness was linked to productivity and that it wasn't a choice between productivity and treating staff better.

His business has been incredibly successful.

He has actually taken it further in the last year, and put the company into trust so it no longer is owed by him. It instead is run to make profit which goes back into environmental causes whilst providing work. He draws a pension from the company and that's it, rather than being a millionaire sat on top of his empire.

His book 'The Responsible Company: What We've Learned from Patagonia's First 40 years' written in 2012 should be more widely read to get an understanding of the points and principles he employed and how they work for businesses and aren't as costly as made out.

It really makes the case for a more economically sound left wing society. Why on earth, Labour aren't screaming to the hills about this stuff I don't know. Policy could be made and sold to the public much better than it is, from this type of stuff. It is far from crusty, hippy shit. Its the spreadsheet friendly, book balancing nerd worthy explanation. This should be their bread and butter. But its not being done and they aren't selling these ideas in anywhere near the way they should be.

When I say I find Labour devoid of policy and ideas and obsessed with authoritarian ideals about right and wrong think, I'm coming from a place of real frustration.

That is really interesting RedToothBrush. It is great to hear that there are some businesses thinking this way. Mostly they do end up being luxury brands I guess because the pay their employees properly and source materials with people and planet in mind.

When I say I find Labour devoid of policy and ideas and obsessed with authoritarian ideals about right and wrong think, I'm coming from a place of real frustration.

I feel this way too…

Yes maybe, but there is a lot of room to do similar within the public sector but we don't. If we have people claiming free childcare, why aren't we keeping it in house for big organisations? It makes no sense at all. Why, when we do planning for big new projects, isn't this part of it? If it helps staff retention, it's worth it!

@MangyInseam thank you so much for your post, excellent! Taxes are a complex issue and there is lots of things to think about.

I think this is a simplistic and deeply unfair statement What other motivation for cutting taxes could there be? It hurts all of us who rely on the NHS, the education system, the police, it hurts the poorest who have fallen on hard times and are dependent on benefits. It enables the very rich to get richer and hurts everyone else.
Surely it depends? On by how much they’re cut, what they are in the first place and in comparison to other countries ( uk has high taxation ) It only hurts those relying on the NHS if it means a reduction in services or quality of service. It’s really not as simple as you state. High taxation is not a good society, to me. I don’t like the government having too much say over my own money.

@RedToothBrush I have heard of him and I love that story! It does make sense. My DH is in a position where he hires and manages a team and he says exactly all that all the time. They have a mentoring programme but it isn’t just work related, he mentors a guy with depression and anxiety and they chat every day about how they both can manage things better… I was actually surprised when he told me but he says his team is the happiest and most efficient because they really care how everyone is and how they’re doing. Pre covid even a long stressful commute for someone was addressed and they got him a computer to work at home half the week. I think this makes so much sense! Even the stupid all blacks have talked about it and changed the way they do things, they say, ‘they play at their best when they’re happy, when the families are happy… ‘

Thanks, so she's not the 'Minister for Women'. Misleading/inaccurate headline, then.

RedToothBrush

Re the example of the company Patagonia

It really makes the case for a more economically sound left wing society. Why on earth, Labour aren't screaming to the hills about this stuff I don't know. Policy could be made and sold to the public much better than it is, from this type of stuff. It is far from crusty, hippy shit. Its the spreadsheet friendly, book balancing nerd worthy explanation. This should be their bread and butter. But its not being done and they aren't selling these ideas in anywhere near the way they should be.

You are right, I’m sure, especially as in the U.K. we already have the example in mind of how successful Fry’s and Cadbury’s were as companies run on similar principles in their own time.