Labour is betraying women

[IwantToRetire]

. . . If Starmer’s government has achieved so much depressing stuff in 71 days, roughly 4 per cent of the way into a possible 5-year term, what they might achieve by the end of it fills me with dread. I believe that Labour showed us, and in some instances told us, what they would do, or not do, to ensure the continued erosion of women’s rights, and they are doing exactly what they said. Why some feminist women, seemingly in a blind bond to Labour, didn’t believe them escapes me. It also infuriates me that they think Labour deserve a bit more rope to hang us with.

Some prominent left-wing women, before the election, pleaded with us to trust Labour and allow them space to make the right decisions. They suggested that it was wrong to focus on the single issue of gender ideology, because women would benefit in so many other ways under a Labour government.

I wonder, did they envisage this Labour government? The one maintaining unequal benefits, placing violent men amongst their female victims and keeping the blurred line between gender and sex embedded in law? I can understand if those women were now as dismayed as the rest of us at what they are seeing, but instead they appear to be spinning for Labour, suggesting the violent men aren’t really being released or excusing it by blaming the Tories. They suggest we should wait and see what happens, keep the faith, trust the process. After many years of being told that women are influencing Labour “behind the scenes” my faith in that has gone.

If you are a feminist woman openly critical of Labour you may now be accused of “right wing drift”. This is nonsense. Instead, should scrutiny not be focused on how far Labour have drifted from the left? This is where condemnation should be aimed. . . .

NB - these are only some paragraphs from the article - you can read the whole article here - https://thecritic.co.uk/labour-is-betraying-women/

But at least Beanie Babies were things. You could throw them at something, like your brother.

My kids will use real money to buy things like an electronic hat for a computer avatar in a game.

My partner, who has some "interesting" theories about all of this, is convinced that it's all because of electronic money and this will be the end of civilization. I can't say I am sure he is wrong.

It so nauseating that Starmer goes for these sort of emotional heart tugging DM headlines.

All of these groups deserve to be housed, but in pandering to get cheap headlines he is just creating more divisions.

Basically saying there isn't enough housing, so we will select who the special people are and put them first.

And sadly so many fall for it. Never think how yet more devisive policies like this feed into the sense that some how many of us just dont matter.

And the cynical part of me is thinking in no time there will be newspaper stories of false claims of DV to get moved up the housing ladder.

Just the usually cowardly avoidance of a whole solution by create a group of exceptions. ie a smoke screen.

There isn't enough housing. Labour could have reversed this last time they were in power and didn't. And now are basically saying it will always be like this, so lets get a few brownie points by appearing to help the most vulnerable. (Except of course if you are a pensioner just above the cut off point for pension credit.)

https://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/national/24606980.veterans-care-leavers-domestic-abuse-victims-will-housed-starmer-vows/

Let’s be honest. Most of us voted Tory or reform on here. Hopefully Labour will last max 5 years. And then order will resume. Like most are saying, Labour didn’t win, the Tories just lost and if Sunak had waited til now, the election would’ve been in the bag for them.

I stopped listening when the programme fundamentally misrepresented the nature of the conspiracy to defraud offence.

I would not want to comment on cases where I may or may not have information about the case which is not publicly available. I will note the following, however:

• One of the strongest defenses against accusations of fraud is that you were acting openly and were neither dishonest nor deceiving anyone. This can be a significant embarrassment when prosecutions are attempted, only for the prosecutor to discover (sometimes during a trial) that key components of the supposed fraud are lacking.
• Focus and blame on the financial services industry from governments and media does not necessarily take into account that companies in the industry are not just operating within regulatory frameworks set by governments, but sometimes acting in ways which they have been specifically pushed into by governments and regulators.

Ultimately bad outcomes in the macro economy tend to be the produce of bad decisions by government, though they will try to disclaim responsibility.

No we didn't. Nice attempt at forced teaming, though.

lol nice try with the ‘all GC are right wing’ trope

you have no idea how women here voted

I certainly didn’t vote Tory

Well sorry but to read the full thread (which I have done) most sound like a load of disgruntled salty Tory voters. If you gave the Tories 14 years to fuck things up, maybe do that with the current shower. And let’s be honest, Labour aren’t driving the electorate towards Farage and Reform. It was the shocking genuine billion pounds lost in corruption and general economic mismanagement by the actual traditional ‘party of government’ that did that. Oh and maybe the actual electorate should take some responsibility for that if it happened.

Speak for yourself! I didn't vote Tory, Reform or Labour.

See, you dodged the question again. Why are you blaming Labour for the crisis in public sector pay and pension costs?

Oh my, this again.

The public sector v cutting WFA was a political choice. And I doubt the markets would have reacted to WFA issue at all, in fact a Labour MP sounded mad in one interview over this.

That's it.You'll have to drop it as I'm not saying anything outside the above. Your question on blame isn't relevant as you've created that part.

I'm not sure about it being the bag if they had waited. Why do you say that?

I think Labour have taken a hit wrt public opinion though in the first few months.

I was born in 1960. I remember news stories every winter about old people dying of hypothermia. I cannot beleive we are going back to that. I agree that well off pensioners should not get WFA but where the line has been drawn is abhorrent. It could easily have been drawn using HMRC info. by identiying pensioners with high savings or income tax etc. I

I rejoined the Labour Party a couple of years ago, after resigning when they chucked people out for signing Labour Women's Declaration. I'm actively involved in my CLP while also sceptical about certain aspects of the party. I decided to be pro-active and try to have some influence rather than whinging from outside. I've canvassed in the last three elections in both middle class and impoverished working class areas of the constituency — and Labour's refusal to commit to clamping down on immigration has come up time and time again. I lost count in July of the number of people on the book (known Labour voters whom we canvass) who said sorry, given up on Labour, going to vote Reform. Some said they would have voted Tory if they thought there were any coherent policies, but after the shitshow of Johnson and Truss they were going straight to Reform. I can see how hard it is for people who are struggling, or who work with people in need, to see refugees being given council housing and other opportunities denied to local citizens. I don't know what we do about immigration, but I really don't think stigmatising working class people who don't want an open door immigration policy (which is supported by many Labour activists I encounter) is the place to start.

I agree with not stigmatising voters, which is an unfortunate habit for the modern left. I don't think it's just immigration - there are lots of issues where the political class is either out of touch or incapable of doing very much - but immigration is the big lightning rod.

I actually think it would be possible to put an argument for a liberal immigration policy and win it. But neither main party has been willing to do that. The Tories talked restrictionist for years and did the opposite in office. In particular Boris Johnson talked about having high wage, high skilled immigration - what I think would be a sensible approach - and then presided over a huge amount of unskilled immigration to drive the Deliveroo economy.

Labour prefer to not say anything, because lots of party members are open borders fetishists and most Labour voters definitely aren't.

So what we come back to is, if the parties made an argument at an election which they then won, and did that, even the people who didn't like the policy would feel it had democratic legitimacy. If the parties say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards, the voters feel like they're being lied to.

As for immigration, so for other issues. I think a lot of problems would be mitigated if politicians would just talk to us like adults.

Politicians are stuck with older language and themes on immigration and cannot square the 1951 convention with the fast rising trafficking and climate pressures

You see it with the ex politicians coming out and relying on old lines but they will fail over time as people start reacting more

You can see suppression, or stuff like Germany and EU but eventually western politicians will need to find a way to listen to the electorate

Separating out the types of immigration of course, as they have different responses

Ah the good old 'You sound like a Tory' argument. To be fair, it can still be effective - it kept me in line for the best part of 50 years.

I’m as working class as they come, tend to vote labour, and live in a town massively affected by immigration of poorly educated unskilled people who let’s be honest are a drain on our cash strapped council. Part of that is due to the huge north south divide in accommodation and living costs which wasn’t solved by the Tories after 14 years (and tbh a majority of time in government over the last century). And the uncontrolled immigration from the rest of the world happened with Tory Brexit. So why voters should think LP are pro open door immigration when the evidence in reality is very different. The tories may have bigged themselves up as opposed to it but their actions speak louder than words.

If I was able to take the comment about us all being tories or whatever nonsense seriously, I would be quite insulted!

As someone who is aware I have commented quite a lot on this thread, in most instances I would have thought it was clear I was saying Labour isn't left enough.

So on one level shouldn't let a derail attempt prompt me into a response.

It just to stop us talking about actual issues.

But just to finish of this comedy section, I grew up in a fairly middle of the road conservative (with a small c) family, who were not party political.

And what I am now so aware of is that the country as a whole, and the Labour Party have moved so far right, that the sort of things that my parent used to say would mean that today they would be taken for being on the left.

For those who lived through WWII and then experienced the start of the national health service, the actual (and very effective) homes for heroes programme, free evening adult education, and so on, didn't support this as a "left" programme but unlike Starmer's sad attempt in his conference speach, but because it felt like it was part of what they had been fighting for.

And of course many of these public services are ones that other European countries who traditionally were seen as being more right wing than the UK, had and still have these aspirations in practice.

The issue of immigration as being the cause people dont have decent housing, etc., is a total myth.

What is so extraordinary that so many people in the UK, across classes, blame immigration rather than the failure of Government to plan and provide for the inhabitants on the British Isle.

Thatcher thought right to buy, privitising of utilities etc., basically asset stripped the country.

Not only did it impact the level of service but means much of the cost to us as consumers goes to shareholders, many of whom at not British citizins.

It amazes me that in 21st century so many people still seem unable to believe that the ruling class (irrespective of party politics) is treating us like subservients serfs (in the original meaning of the word).

And it seems some sort of ingrained forelock tugging attitudes persists as though we have a benign country genrty where the people in the big house look after us if we just know our place.

Have any government reverses the right to buy and invested in building social housing, there wouldn't be a problem.

Not forgetting that the increase in legal immigration is because the UK doesn't have enough people to do all the essential jobs, whether in the NHS or the shit work that most dont want to do.

And as discussed on another thread, as a country we aren't having enough babies to provide the work force we will need in future years.

This country would grind to a halt without immigration.

This country would grind to a halt without immigration.

People don't want to hear that, though.

Comment on Starmer's conference speech which was said as much in sadness as for laughs:

"It's as though Starmer still has Corbyn living in his head."

And once I heard that the speech made sense. It almost didn't matter what the issue was so long as it couldn't in any way be said to be Corbynite.

One of his, the LP's, current sales pitch is we will change the country like we changed the Labour Party.

The Labour Party who curtials member's rights.

The Labour Party that has been captured by a small group funded by a millionaire, to make it non left.

The Labour Party that weaponises issues such as Zionism and women's sex based rights to get rid of members they dont like.

If it wasn't so serious, you would have to laugh as such a bunch of air brushed focus group parrots who cant even work out how to make cuts that will make some people poorer than the people they say they want to help. They aren't even logical.

But then living in a very "woke" Labour borough has really made me appreciate that fine sounding words are great but if you cant even organise a piss up in a brewery, you shouldn't be standing for public office where your incometence ruins people's lives.

They really haven't matured beyond the soap box politics of first year students.

Polls show people can separate types of migration and feel policies can differ to the benefit of the country

It doesn't have to be just stop it all

Yes, but it's easy to say, we want the 'good' immigrants, and not the 'bad' ones.

Polls show people can separate types of migration and feel policies can differ to the benefit of the country

And both the media and politicians could be much more honest about the number of immigrants are here because we, the UK, want and need them.

And it would also help if the UK had set up a proper process for asylum seekeers.

If these had been put in place, or Labour promised to put them in place, it would be far easier to talk without negativity about giving asylum. Not forgetting the UK has one of the lowest levels of giving asylum.

Unfortunately the media, and politicians playing up to the media, talk in half truths.

And just to be positive for once, it was really noticeable that without any top down directive, how many communities organised themselves to offer help and practical support.

I take it you're not arguing for no controls? or..

It's hard to know what you are both advocating