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/

Yes, when people are paying millions for non fungible artworks that only exist online and others are staking everything on BitCoin, we're into uncharted territory. Quite glad at times I'm not young and trying to navigate my way through it all.

"Being detached from reality" is a salient characteristic of things I cannot get into.

Well no, I just don't completely agree and am saying why which is how mn works.

Outside soundbites from Labour people are looking at policy, tax and what's being primed. This seems changeable and various groups are feeling more nervous about what the plan is, for example CBI and IoD.

They really do need to keep that growth going, if it stalls it'll be hard. Higher debt can also be dealt with via growth. So their policies are key

Apart from Reeves trying to assure the markets that she'll be tough, I assume there's also a view that you do all the unpopular things at the start, take the hit in the polls, and two or three years in everyone will be feeling grateful for those tough decisions.

It makes sense. But it also assumes that things will improve - which they might, but it's a very faith based position.

Their policies are key.

I'm sure we're all eagerly awaiting his policy on sausages please spare us five actual years of this

I suppose he could bring back the Cones Hotline

That's a fair point; starting with the bad news and then uplifting people with the promise of better times ahead seems to make sense. And perhaps nobody would have bought a sudden swerve into sunlit uplands. The narrative asks for a period of gruelling toughness as a consequence of Tory failures.

But.

It's also gambling with the emotions of a populace that has had several years of extreme upheaval and uncertainty and is facing a globally very unsettled and potentially threatening time. Piling gloom onto a stressed and impoverished population is risking more civil unrest and that could fuel more populist sentiment. It's also setting the initial opening tone for the government, and that can be hard to recover from/change.

Businesses have also called out Labour for the gloom. They do actually need investment and it doesn't help.

And maybe they can bash people for a while and get through it, but that comes down to having policies that promote growth.

None of which alters the fact that on this finite planet with finite resources, this chimera of 'economic growth' is not sustainable. But that doesn't even seem to interest many politicians.

It's got very strong vibes of Cameron and Osborne in 2010 asking us to accept austerity while repeating "long term economic plan" until they were blue in the face.

The thing is, they prepared voters for that before the election. Labour got through the election saying very little about their plans and leading the voters to believe that they'd make things better just by being competent.

Everyone knew finances would be very tight; I don't think anyone believes Reeves got a look at the books and suddenly discovered a massive black hole. It's not the doom and gloom they'll be punished for, it's that sunny optimism before the election and doom and gloom immediately afterwards makes it look like they've pulled a fast one.

Well no, I just don't completely agree and am saying why which is how mn works.

No, that's not what's happened here. I put forward an argument and explained why I thought that theory might be accurate. I've tried to supply some evidence to it. I've made it clear that these are my relatively tentative opinions.

You've dodged the difficult question I asked — why are you holding Labour to account for the public sector pay rises of the last 15 years of Tory rule —and just lobbed a number of single-sentence statements at me.

Give me some joined-up thinking and who knows, I may agree with you. But if you want me to debate with you you'll need to do better than random observations. How about starting with:

What would you do to halt the cost of public sector wages — and more importantly, public sector pensions? Why do you think the Tories didn't do this over the last 15 years?

Yes this

Yes, the 'limitless borrowed cash/inflation' unstoppable force is due to meet the 'rising population' immovable object at some point, surely?

I referred to the public sector pay rises as that is what has given us the highest debt since the 1960s, it wasn't for infrastructure

I also pointed out that increasing pay was a political choice against removing the WFA

If you think Reeves had to be harsh for the markets it didn't actually have to be the WFA, that was the political part. It could have been in the region of public sector pay rises instead.

Just going back to the original thrust of the thread, it struck me that ironically, if only they could see it, Labour have the opportunity to make that big human rights statement. Make their mark on history.

Women's rights is that issue - Afghanistan, Iran, India, China, sex-trafficking in Europe, pornography, loss of rights to the genderist lobby, MVAWG, girls being raped at school. It's a much easier sell to the electorate than the non-existent oppression of their middle-class chums. (Nothing against the middle classes in general, I count myself as middle class and much societal good has been achieved by middle class people.)

Labour cannot effectively fight MVAWG without naming it "male" or while they count men as women. They can't tackle pornography if sex work is work. They have to pick one - men's privileges or women's rights. They have to set aside their endemic misogyny and do the right thing - the thing that actually needs doing. Fix the real social problem, not the made-up one.

It's never going to happen, of course.

Agree. And it's a relatively easy (and cheap) win, compared to getting the NHS on track, CoL crisis, Gaza, climate change, refugee crisis, etc. If the will was there.

It would go well with the electorate, I just find it hard to imagine Labour not giving priority to men's boners.

Interesting as it might be to discuss global finances, or even UK finances, the issue is the decision they have taken and the messages they send.

All this over egging the deficit. We all knew that.

And the first decision they take is an attack on pensioners.

Utterly bizarre.

No decision to increase taxes on the very rich.

So what message does that send.

They just sound like the Tories. Now they are talking about getting people of benefits, and apart from Rwanda nonsense, sounding like the Tories on asylum seekers. Nothing so obvious as we will set up places where asylum seekers can make a claim for asylum. This is why people are taking to the boats because the UK doesn't not have one application centre anywhere in Europe. Look at what happened to Ukrainian who theoretically should have sailed through the process where left in limbo.

They can waffle on as long as they like, but it is what they actually do that is making people so angry.

And irrespective of the reason for the pay awards they have agreed so far, nobodies going to say that's amazing, because for the same reason they "won" the election is because the Tories lost.

So rectifying Tory errors for a group that has the power through strikes to get attention just emphasises that they are attacking the weakest. Pensoners a benefit claimants.

Have they made one statement about making those with the broadest shoulders in terms of wealth being asked to take a cut.

I cannot understand how they cant understand how what they actually DO is what is making them so despised.

Surely no one thinks that Starmer making pompous claims about what they will do (really?) compensates for what they are doing.

Based on the news, the Tories might just as well be in power.

I suspect you are right, and I don't feel like I can even claim I think they were wrong as far as it goes, because I don't have a good sense of what the other options might have been.

But for goodness sake, surely they must understand that if they are going to make these kinds of decisions they must not look like it is one rule for the people, and another for the members of the government? If you are cutting winter fuel supplements while wearing "free" thousand pound glasses you should expect to be torn to shreds when you go out among the people.

Make it look at least a bit like they are taking a hit too.

apart from Rwanda nonsense, sounding like the Tories on asylum seekers.

They're interested in Albania for processing I think. I'm sure it was reported he spoke to Meloni about that.

They're no different. Apart from the attacks on pensioners I guess.

Annual level of benefit cap (Greater London)
Couples (with or without children) or single claimants with a child of qualifying age £25,323.00
Single adult households without children £16,967.00

Annual level of benefit cap (rest of Great Britain)
Couples (with or without children) or single claimants with a child of qualifying age £22,020.00
Single adult households without children £14,753.00
NB rates for this year have not increased from last year.

Current state pension if born after 5 April 1953: £11,502.40
Current state pension if born before 5 April 1953: £8,814.00

Sorry to repost myself from last night but there were a couple of posts about pension levels.

Many women will not have paid enough NI to qualify for full pension, and are (I assume) some of those who should be claiming pension credits but haven't.

And no the pension figures are for pensions, and some pensioners can claim benefit (lots of strange rules about that) See https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit and https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get

And there are also Local Housing Allowances as to the maximum you can claim. https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/

As an example see graphic for LHA in London (which do not match actual rents being charged)

I think no one anywhere really knows what to do about this.

It's the same with the refugee issue. No one knows what to do because the current situation isn't working and looks to be worse.

Indeed. Fewer wars would help, of course.

Apparently Labour Women's Network had a meeting about Labour's First Term Priority Plans for Women, and said it would be online but I cant find anything. https://www.lwn.org.uk/lab24_feminist_futures

Does anyone know what was said?

Ah, see I feel I have a handle on this having lived through the great Beanie Babies craze of the late 90s.