Keir Starmer to end Tory Culture Wars

[Sausagenbacon]

Oh what a relief. Where would we be without him?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/exclusive-keir-starmer-says-he-will-end-tory-culture-wars-if-he-becomes-prime-minister_uk_6666d7d2e4b02fc48bf3ec39?d_id=7763591&ncid_tag=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=uk_main

Those who are ‘very proud’ of Britain’s history are 40 points more likely than those who are ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ proud to support the Conservatives or Reform/UKIP. The equivalent figure in 2013 was little more than half that – 21 points.

I did post this from NatCen.

I'm not going to vote with people that are not proud of this country. I genuinely feel that they are the people that are at war with the common person with their lives and roots in a very decent country.

If our history is not one to be proud of why are so many people determined to come here? To change it or to participate in it?

There is so much loathing emanating from the left it's become debilitating.

Public sector services are entirely in the control of the left and apparently they are not proud of the history of the country that manage on our behalf.

We are at the mercy of people that don't like us.

When Theresa May wanted to change the GRA procedure, there was a opportunity for everyone to contribute to the consultation.

The results showed that the only practical change was the fee.

Whats changed since the consultation? Hopefully labour will give everyone a chance to contribute to another consultation before they make changes that impact on so many people.

Note: 5,500 men have been given female birth certificates, that number doesnt include women with a GRC.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/another-fall-in-public-support-for-changing-sex-on-birth-certificates/

Here is sex matters take on the change in attitude captured by NatCen.

As this thread is being used (well by some) to not talk about the thread OP but what they want to say, wouldn't it be funny if in fact Reform and the Tories made a pact and together claimed they had more votes than Labour so should form the Government - see chart.

Question came to mind as a news report was saying Labour is also losing votes to Reform.

I know some will say this isn't how the FPTP works, but many left, liberal voters said this about Tory win, ie that if their votes were all added togther they were a larger group then Tory voters.

CassieMaddox

What has 5,000 GRCs obtained under the current system got to do with it? It hasn't cost them £5 at all, why would you even say that?

The increased danger to women and girls would arise from the increase in numbers of men posing as women, who wan to insert themselves into women's places. Even if they are removed, or even arrested, they'll be able to get off, by showing their certificates.

The process for getting a "lady ticket" is already successful in 96% of cases and so can't get much easier.

What you say is not logical. The process at present may not be expensive but is more difficult to arrange and go through than it would become under Labour.

At present say 100 people, who are very committed to getting a GRC, go through the whole process and 96% of them are successful. They are likely to have waited some time and feel as sure as they can that this is what they want. They most likely represent a particular cohort. The time scale within which these 96 GRCs are granted would be relatively long.

The proposed Labour plans however are for a very much easier process yet. That is why they are planning them!

One GP, not 2, no panel, no spousal protection/ permission. So it could well mean that there would be, say, 500 applications instead of 100 and in much faster time. That would be the whole point of the changes Labour wants to make.

I shall never forgot a point a poster once made, whose name I can’t remember, who was so right to point out that disabled people have to go through the most difficult and undignified checks time after time in order to have their needs met, and get their allowances.

Yet this terrible GRC which lies on a birth certificate, which was only allowed because it was thought so few would obtain it, a very rare request, should now be easier to get. On the contrary GRCs should be removed.

The GR bill was introduced (by Labour under the radar) to pretend a same sex marriage was a heterosexual one, at a time when non trans homosexuals were not allowed marriage. How outrageous. It is lie upon lie.

The GR bill was introduced (by Labour under the radar) to pretend a same sex marriage was a heterosexual one, at a time when non trans homosexuals were not allowed marriage. How outrageous. It is lie upon lie.

And that fact needs to be thrown in the face of every Labour pol who says they are so 'proud' of the GRA.

Yes, its the 'privacy' part of the GRA thats important. And the part that is in the way of safeguarding.

If it was just to allow people the benefits of marriage, they could have waited until the introduction of civil partnerships just months later.

Its 'privacy' of the newly aquired opposite sex identity that is key. Thats why a new birth certificate is issued, and where even when applying for dbs checks, the orginal sex can be hiden from employees.

Even when it is established that a man with a grc is not a woman or female and cannot use womens single sex services, its difficult when they have no documentation to say that they are men.

So something that enabled homophobia to continue rather than just allowing same sex marriages, is now being hailed as incredible...

...to enable harassment and abuse of homosexuals who don't want heterosexuals in their dating pools.

Its ALMOST as if everything about this ideology has a massive streak of homophobia running through it.

Gender ideology is homophobic af

My main problem with gender ideology is more basic than single sex-spaces, puberty blockers etc. My main problem with it is that it's bollocks. This would not matter if it was not been taken seriously at the highest levels and on down through the pay grades.

It is the acceptance of bollocks as something that should be officially endorsed and even enforced that all the other evils flow from. I'm not reassured by the fact that Starmer will have several gender loons in the cabinet.

You always do this come into a thread and try to force all others to accede to your viewpoint, you berate and make allegations of being in bed with the far right, praise Keir Starmer to the skies and take great umbrage at those who disagree with you and then flounce out.

This comment of yours is so dismissive:

But it was just the normal Rosie Duffield thing.

You think the way Rose Duffield has been treated by Labour Party MPs and members is acceptable? You think Keir Starmer remaining silent whilst one of his MPs was subject to such extreme threats and abuse paints him in a good light?

Can you point to any Conservative MPs who have been subjected to the levels of vitriol and abuse by their own MPs and party members as Rosie Duffield has? Or do you think the threats and abuse Rosie receives are from some 'far right cabal'?

Sadly this streak of nastiness within Labour is not new, it happened in the Kinnock years with Militant Tendency, under Blair and Brown with their respective attack dogs Alastair Campbell and Damien McBride, with Corbyn and Momentum.

It's a feature not a bug.

Re the Culture Wars, this is an interesting article I came across today:

https://thecritic.co.uk/spring-fever/

'There are problems with liars and lunatics online, of course. It would be foolish to deny it. But to a great extent the weirdness on social media reflects the weirdness of the real world. A recent study found:

Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence.

Undaunted — and, to be fair, understandably so given her job title — Spring has been attempting to see the election through a “disinformation and social media” framework. “Young voters in key election battlegrounds are being recommended fake AI-generated videos featuring party leaders, misinformation, and clips littered with abusive comments,” she reported early in June. Some of her examples were a bit embarrassing…

I’m not at all opposed to journalism about disinformation (especially as the tools of large-scale lying become more sophisticated). But disinformation journalism is hopelessly mired in self-importance and boomer bait. It is, ironically, actively misleading people about the nature of modern political discourse.'

This comment of yours is so dismissive:

Exactly.

The notion of "disinformation" is a key feature of the culture wars, and it is notable how often information is proclaimed to be untrue, or promoted by malevolent, shadowy powers, or that a piece of information or idea put forward by a single person on the Internet can be taken as representative of larger themes in politics.

One remarkable detail is that claims of disinformation are often, in themselves, a form of disinformation. Prior to the Voice referendum in Australia, The Guardian ran a series of articles on how the no vote was being fueled by disinformation. Examples of which included details like the no campaign stating that they thought the vote was divisive. Which is not only clearly an opinion (which kind of disqualifies something from being disinformation), but also one which seems fairly well supported by evidence (as the no vote won, maybe the referendum in itself was a just a little bit divisive?).

The whole idea of disinformation is effectively based around the conspiratorial thinking of the left; if you believe that the policies you are putting forward are self-evidently the best and most beneficial for everyone, you consequently need an explanation as to why people oppose your policies. Thus, you get the claim of shadowy, malign, influence, political interference, troll farms, all all of the other ideas which form the foundation of disinformation claims.

I wish this hadn't been politicised. It is too important.

It wasn’t the gender critical/sex reality side that politicised it. It was politicised decades ago by the genderists, as is very clearly laid out in the “Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht” book - a brilliant read, by the way.
The politicisation was deliberate, well-planned and frighteningly effective - so here we are. Politicians of all stripes fell for it, but the Left fell particularly hard.

Yes, I'm.sure I've just read an article on this.

Sowing distrust in the media is a tactic of authoritarianism.

In short this notion that only the right produce and are responsible for disinformation because the left is saintly and pure and doing all the right things and can do no wrong. Any self reflection or self critical pause for thought isn't allowed. It's easier to just dismiss concerns or say they aren't that important.

Both sides are wont to disseminate disinformation.

Yes, I'm.sure I've just read an article on this.

This is a must see video.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5051761-worth-watching-unherd-investigation-inside-the-disinformation-industry-kathleen-stock-specifically-mentioned

No because it doesn't suit their agenda to say 'yep we've got a bunch of supporters who are actively peddling shit.'

Because they don't think it looks good and they then would lose people to deliver thousands of spammy leaflets through your door.

Meanwhile most normal people would be delighted if they actually admitted a problem and it would be the very first step in restoring public trust.

Party first is the take home lesson we all learn.

Wont - have a tendency to...

Not won't - will not!

Of course he will. All Trump has to do is stop the US funding the war and it's over.

Just like he can also - on the first day - overturn Biden's EO that declared that men can be women for the purposes of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

But, you know, mean tweets...