Re: Starmer

[EpicChaos]

I hope that starmer, having possibly wetted his finger and stuck it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing,following Sturgeons resignation, doesn't think, that if he starts to be a bit GC, that women will be keen to vote for him!
The man has already planted his flag and just like Sturgeon, he chose to plant it on the north face of the Eiger. More fool him! imo.

I've already seen the colours that he wears and they aren't green, purple and white!
Women don't owe him a damned thing!

I think Icake it boils down to whether you'd want your thread to focus on Labour's record with women or on wider issues. I can see reasons for both but, as I'm sure you know, any mention of gender self ID will see mass reporting to try and get it moved back here, although that hasn't always worked recently. AIBU will bring out the ermm.... contrarians and there's a high risk it'll go down in flames, but then while it's there, it'll get a wide viewing. Politics is so quiet now that posters have started visiting here for their sport.

You make some very good points and I really like the idea of 'real' letters.

And I'm sorry you had a bad time on Style and Beauty. I hang out there a lot and it used to be one of the most helpful boards I knew but it's very unpredictable these days.

@Floisme my visit to s&b was very, very brief. It was more what I did to show myself up. It was late, I was bored and may have been drinking. Iirc I recommended a concealer which I'd heard about 20 yo, suggested Preparation H for puffy eyes, outed myself as a bag lady and left, all in one post. If anyone was mean to me after all that, I wouldn't blame them but I was scared to look I'm neither stylish nor beautiful

I've never written to Starmer and I have no plans to. I'm not very articulate and tend to stray from the point. But if a thread is posted I'll watch with interest and do what I can for it.

Ah soz Icake- there were several quoted posts and I got in a tangle with you, scratchedbymycat, Slothtoes and possibly others too! Anyway interesting idea and I do think there's something about a mailed letter with a stamp that makes it stand out from an email, however personalised.

(I'm not into make up so I won't have seen your thread of shame!)

You are aware that for the past 13 years the Tory government have consistently inacted policies that make women, children less safe?

I never thought I would acknowledge the Tories for anything, but...

25th January 2023
www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework

If you click on the link and read the text, it clearly says the current government is making changes to its policy - "Under the reforms, transgender women with male genitalia, or those who have been convicted of a sexual offence, should no longer be held in the general women’s estate."

So the Tories are finally starting to do something. on transgender people and prisons.

Also, the Cass Review was commissioned under a Conservative government.

The DofE is supposed to be consulting on "gender identity" guidance for schools this year.

And if the "Tory government have consistently inacted policies that make women, children less safe" or the past 13 years, to quote jgw1, what exactly does the Labour party intend to do about that, should it win the next general election?

And you are aware that they are thankfully clamping down on the gender madness, that the PM can openly state that a woman is an adult human female and that the LP are doubling down on it all, bringing in self id and their leader dare not say what a woman is?

That doesn't though really address the very many other harms that 13 years of Tory government has done to women and children.

Have a look at the respective parties policies on policing for one example.
Investing properly in the NHS would be another good one.

And how much harm will be done by the LP when the definition of the word woman includes fetishistic men? When the words woman and girl are completely meaningless? You cannot protect what you cannot define.

Less harm than was done by shutting Sure Start centres.

Investing in the NHS is an important discussion, and it's about all people who need healthcare, which is to say everyone. What the Tories have done, and plan to do, and what Labour might plan to do, is worth considering.

It's not really revealing about the views of either party on sex and gender or women specifically.

This is a very important point @DemiColon thank you for raising it.

The current incarnation of the Tory party specialise in harming everyone whose income isn't in the top 1%. They are cruel to almost everyone, some people they are more cruel to than others, but their cruelty is fairly consistent.

Well we disagree on that. Shutting Sure Start centres was a very bad move.

Pretending that women are not a sex class and all the consequences that come with that is on a whole other level.

And once again the irritating anti-Tory rants when the party under discussion is the LP and Starmer. 🙄

@twitterexile If there is anything factually inaccurate in my post, or anything I have posted about that you would like to discuss to feel free to have a discussion. I think it is the point of a discussion board.

The point is that the thread is about Starmer and the LP, not how 'cruel' you think the Tory party is.

The Tories are shit.

Labour is shit.

They're shit for different reasons.

The DofE is supposed to be consulting on "gender identity" guidance for schools this year.

I wouldn't hold your breath there; a few are quite concerned about the level of bias within the dept and that the guidance won't be clear enough or go far enough.

It's going to be another decade before more evidence is gathered and policy within medicine is better before it will influence schools. And more detransitioners speak up. Under either party.

Unfortunately Starmer as leader of the opposition is responsible for both prisons and education in this country and so I think you are right, any review will not be satisfactory.

In a two party system, which is what we have in the UK, it is not unreasonable to consider the only alternative and what they may do. Especially given the alternative also happen to be the government who have introduced many of the things some posters on this thread are deeply concerned that Starmer might do.
I know, I know, the point of going on and on about gender is to try and bash Starmer in some way, but it is all rather transparent.

And the current incarnation of the labour party is behaving very, very cruelly towards everyone because ultimately no-one wins when you pretend men are women, act like a dictator towards those who can see that the emperor is not wearing any clothes and do you very, very best to dismantle all female protections. An unequal society, is not in anyone's best interests - I expect you'd agree with this. The Tories at least pretend they believe that bringing the rich up brings everyone up. KS appears to just not give a shit what happens to some of the most vulnerable people in society (women and children).

Well I don't love current Tory economic policy, but I think this idea that many people on the left have that it is directed excusivly to enriching the already rich is quite mistaken. That's not the goal, any more than it is the goal of the Labour Party.

Now, there are exploiters in both parties, out for their own benefit, the LP is as big on global capitalism as the Torys and arguable have lost most of their interest in the working classes. But their main argument is how to build a robust economy. The left tend to see the right as forgetting supports for those with less, to give them a leg up, the right sees the left as wanting to placate those same people with social programs while undermining the economic growth that creates the funds for said social programs.

Imagining the other side to simply have evil motives is convenient but self-indulgent.

I’m not seeing much difference from Labour policy. A few policies that have low benefit other than sounding appealing. Nothing drastic on Brexit. Not sure about wealth tax.

Labour also know that alienating the well off doesn’t really help, probably why Blair did well he managed to avoid doing that (although PFI wasn’t great, or war / crash). But he did get that you’ve got to keep people on all levels onside.

This Labour will face same issues with funding and although they just repeat we’ll fund more getting a few billion out of Nom Doms before they leave for more attractive countries won’t help much.

I know, I know, the point of going on and on about gender is to try and bash Starmer in some way, but it is all rather transparent.

You are definitely scraping the barrel here. Women care about our rights, our dignity and our privacy and many will not vote for a party which has self id as a policy. Men are not women no matter what some privileged idiots think. It is as simple as that.