OK.
So let's go back to talking about the Tories vs Labour.
Cards on the table, so you can see where I'm coming from. I generally dislike and distrust most politicians, in general. I see them as a necessary evil, in that we need someone to run the country, democracy is the least worst way of electing a government, but generally speaking the kind of people who want to run for public office are not the best people for the job. That seems to be getting worse, not better, thanks to the social media era. Who would want to be a female MP when you can see how Rosie Duffield has been treated for stating biological facts, or how Anna Soubry was treated for her stance on Brexit? Not me.
I've never voted for the Tories or for Labour. I have leaned more towards Labour than the Tories but usually ended up voting Lib Dem because Labour can't win in my area. I have also previously voted for the Greens and the National Health Action Party.
Much like JK Rowling, my primary political focus used to be Brexit, and now it is women's rights and child safeguarding.
So.
The political landscape. Basically it's the Tories or Labour, with smaller parties pretty much farting around inconsequentially, unless you happen to live in Scotland or Wales.
What is the difference between the Tories and Labour?
The way I see it, the Tories tend to think about economic policies more in terms of, "How will this benefit me?" whereas Labour tend to think about economic policies in terms more in terms of, "How does this benefit society?"
This means that broadly speaking the Tories support a smaller state and lower taxes, whereas Labour are more in favour of tax and spend.
In theory, at least. In reality, both parties will be either constrained or liberated according to the prevailing economic conditions, and both parties will want to offer financial incentives to the electorate if they are actually interested in getting elected or re-elected, which the Tories clearly are.
When it comes to social policies, the position is far less clear.
The Tories are still obviously taking the, "How does this benefit me?" approach. And this is absolutely crucial to our understanding of why they do what they do. Clearly, there is no economic benefit to the Rwanda policy, for example. So why do they have that policy? To appeal to the electorate. Because they think it's a vote winner. And whilst people on the political left and in the media may be hand wringing about the Rwanda policy, the reality is that there are millions of people in this country who are very upset about boat people and want to be reassured that the government is doing something about it.
Similarly, with Brexit, the Tories could have imposed restrictions on immigration from EU countries well before Brexit. They chose not to, because there was no economic benefit in doing so. It was only in the wake of the referendum result that they decided on a policy of "taking back control of our borders" because that was what voters said they wanted, and the Tories wanted, above all things, to stay in power.
Where does the Tories' approach to gender issues fit into that? To a certain extent I think people like Theresa May wanted to support something which would have no economic cost, which they didn't particularly care about either way, but which could win support from people who did not already support the Tories. The reason the Tories have ditched their self ID policy and are making noises about single sex spaces and child safeguarding is because they have figured out that this is what a majority of people, and crucially, the overwhelming majority of people who might be persuaded to vote for them, want. They have realised that the people headbanging about trans rights will never vote for them anyway so they don't need to worry about them, and have decided to appeal to the silent majority instead.
What about Labour?
Well, it's more tricky.
The first point to note is that, from where I'm standing, they seem a lot less fussed about getting elected. So their social policies are generally formed from an ideological standpoint, often based on little more than what the left wing cultural zeitgeist says is "progressive" and see no need to deviate from that because eventually people will get sick of the Tories and they'll win an election by default.
That's just about where we are now. Despite the fact that people have apparently been really sick of the Tories for a really long time, Labour is only just now pulling ahead in the polls, and it doesn't appear to have anything to do with Labour actually offering policies that a majority of people actually support. People have just had enough of the Tories.
When they get elected - and I believe it is when, not if - they will interpret this as an endorsement of their policies, not a rejection of the Tories. And they will take the view that once they're in power they're safe for five years so they can do what they like.
That's where I see the real danger with regard to Labour's stance on women's rights in particular, and to a lesser extent child safeguarding. There's been a lot of reverse ferreting since the Cass report came out, and I believe that they have now realised there is essentially no political appetite from the electorate for the medical transitioning of children.
But I don't expect there to be any movement on women's rights, because for whatever reason, Labour clearly do not consider women's rights to be important. People who, in 2022 and 2023, are willing to say things like, "A small number of women have a penis", are not going to do a U-turn and say, "You know what, of course women don't have penises, women are female people and we need to ensure that we have proper legislation in place which both recognises women as a distinct, sex-based category in law and policy, and protects their sex based rights." They're just not.
And since the Lib Dems, the Green, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are even worse than Labour in this respect, that leaves feminists without a single viable option to vote for, unless they are comfortable enough with the Tories' other policies to vote for them.
I find that wholly unacceptable.