Struggling with my political allegiance now and it's really bothering me

[Appalonia]

Since the eighties, I have been a leftie, raised money for the Miners ' strike, was in the SWP for a while in the 90s, lifelong Guardian reader, worked for charities for most of my career. However, I'm so disillusioned with what the left has become now. It started as for many of us with the trans issue, seeing formally trusted and respected institutions like the BBC, the Guardian, C4 etc either ignore, or blatantly skew the issues, the only place I could read the truth about what was happening was on ' right wing' media outlets that I would have dismissed outright previously.

Since it was only right wing outlets or posters that were talking about this, pp like Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, The Spectator etc, I feel like I've been exposed to right wing views that I now feel more more aligned to than left wing commentators like Owen Jones, Mark Steel, most comedians etc.

I now listen to Trigggernometry, Free Speech Nation The Lotus Eaters, and I'm starting to feel more aligned to them on other issues now, like free speech, immigration etc.

So, I'm thinking about the demonstration for free speech in London on 13 September in London and part of me really wants to go because I think it's really important and what's happened with the trans debate and how it's been reported in the press and how so many gender critical pp have been silenced. And it's not just about GC views, it's about free speech in general. But the people who are organising this, is really putting me off. I want to go and stand up for what I believe in but at the same time, this demo is being characterised as a ' far right' demonstration, and I don't want to be associated with that. In fact, years ago, I would have been on the other side, demonstrating against fascists.

I just can't disentangle it all in my mind, I believe in free speech and I do believe it's under threat in the UK, but at the same time I don't want to be associated with pp like Tommy Robinson. But even saying that, just watching his interview on Triggernometry was eye opening. Can anyone relate to this? I just feel so conflicted right now.

Sorry, I don't feel I've expressed myself very well, there's so much more th an this. I just can't square my identity of myself of a life long socialist with how much I disagree with so much of what the left stands for now, that I just don't agree with.

You can't really say 'people like KJK'. Shes in her own class. And its pro women.

Otherwise, yes, good points!

We are still struggling with the notion of equity, as a society.

You are just growing up, that’s all. Embrace the growth mindset, leave being the 6th firm luxury beliefs and join the grown-ups.

I didn't mean "people like KJK" as in, there's a class of people just like her and she is the epitome of it.

I meant it as in, "people not naturally politically aligned with feminists, such as these two individuals for example".

I agree that I can't think of anyone else quite like KJK. The closest person I can think of is probably Riley Gaines, but even then there are obvious differences between the two.

KJK is pro women but claims not to identify as a feminist. Is that because she doesn't understand what a feminist is (someone who is pro women) or is it because she does understand what a feminist is (someone who subscribes to a whole set of beliefs, many of which she doesn't agree with)?

This is actually the heart of the problem. A huge disagreement between people who call themselves feminists about what feminism actually is.

Is Riley Gaines pro women? Is she a feminist? She's certainly pro women in sport, but has more conservative views about other things such as abortion due to her religious beliefs.

Can you be a feminist who doesn't support the right to an abortion?

Can you be a Christian who is pro choice?

Can you be a Christian and a feminist?

My own view is that the feminist position in relation to any particular issue is the one that seeks to remove or minimise any physical or societal disadvantage suffered by female people and put them on an equal footing with male people as far as possible.

But if you define a feminist as someone who takes the feminist position in relation to every issue, well, nobody is ideologically pure enough to qualify. My kids have their dad's surname, so I guess I wouldn't qualify.

And if you insist on defining feminists as people who agree on every feminist issue, you can't be surprised to find that almost no one fits the definition of a feminist, and the four billion incredibly diverse women on this planet don't have a movement which represents them.

It's so much easier if all you have to agree on is that male people (however they identify) should have the freedom to do what they want.

Yes, all of that is true, but Britain is still importing coal from elsewhere, and countries such as Russia, India, China, Turkey, Germany the U.S and Australia are still mining it.

It depends on your purity spiral doesn't it?

Personally I think there are different levels of feminism that women want and are happy with according to their cultural upbringing. And I'd rather that was encouraged to a certain degree accepting that a certain amount of political differences should be respected rather than get into discussions over 'not being feminist enough'.

That way lies the madness which we see consuming the left already.

I think it generally comes down to 'deeds not words'.

I dgaf whether I'm seen as a feminist or not. We need women's and girls' interests fought for.

This.

Yes, this is all part of the same purity spiral tendency we’ve got right now. Abortion is a ‘purity’ point, for example because there’s a massive range of options from ‘never’ to ‘up to the point of birth’. But instead of recognition of this, you get the US ‘any restriction whatsoever and we’re straight into the handmaid’s tale.’

Riley Gaines can’t be a feminist because she’s balancing rights on abortion to come down on the more conservative side? Why not? Why isn’t there a feminist pro-life perspective? There should be.

Why aren’t we talking about what a feminist pro-life perspective looks like? What kind of feminism is it that says a woman’s choice is between abortion and being totally responsible for another human being for 18 years plus? Isn’t feminism about expanding choices?

Another purity thing; can you be a Christian and a feminist? Again, there’s a massive range of options with Christianity - it’s very diverse. But again, we get into a purity spiral with ‘Christianity means Trump voting Southern Baptists who are secretly funding Mumsnet…’

Yeah, I think we’d be a lot better if we accepted that people like Riley Gaines and KJK and Christians who hate abortion but support the (entirely Christian) right of a woman to have a career outside kids and marriage are feminist. Just not Official Feminists.

Anyone who thinks that IQ is related to race hasn't read Guns Germs and Steel.

There are pragmatic reasons for keeping abortion legal and easy to obtain. The most compelling reason is exemplified by Savita Happalanavar. When a doctor is legally compelled to withhold medical treatment and endanger his patient because she is pregnant, women die needlessly. Anyone who is willing to accept women's preventable deaths for the sake of forcing women to carry to term is not feminist.

What kind of feminism is it that says a woman’s choice is between abortion and being totally responsible for another human being for 18 years plus?

Adoption is generally deemed the option of last resort for children whose parents cannot care for them, not as an empowering lifestyle choice for mothers, and there are good reasons for this.

Should mothers get more support? Of course they should. Closing Sure Start centres was a stupid idea. But "prolife" doesn't mean "a political belief that mothers should be supported with State-funded services", it means "a political belief that abortion should be criminalised".

More support for mothers also doesn't make the mother become not responsible for her child for 18 years. She is still the person who, in law, has automatic parental responsibility from birth.

Welcome to my TED talk. I will now attempt to demonstrate how your argument follows the ‘purity spiral’ by comparing it to the arguments of TRA’s.

Essentially, the main argument is following the ‘but people will die if they can’t get immediate access to treatment’ argument so beloved of TRA’s.

It also draws strict limits on what ‘the good people’ can think. Someone does not think as the arguer does. Therefore someone isn’t a ‘good person’ (feminist).

Another TRA technique used is to suggest one solution fits all the problems of a particular case. A look at the Savita Happalanavar case will suggest that her death was caused by faulty medical diagnosis and a failure to apply already existing judicial decisions permitting abortions if the mother’s life was in danger. This was aggravated, judging by some of the comments of the medical staff, by racism and bigotry towards someone of a different religion.

But like TRA’s presenting with multiple mental health problems, all this would be solved by one treatment. Instead of ‘transition’ we’ve got 'abortion’. Would the sepsis the medical staff failed to screen for have been prevented by the abortion Savita should have (quite legally) been given? Given their failure to screen for it, quite possibly not. Is transition going to ‘solve’ depression and suicidal thoughts? Quite possibly not.

Then there’s the redefining of words. ‘Pro-life’ has suddenly been defined as the extreme end of a more diverse set of beliefs. Very similar to TRA’s and their usage of ‘transphobia’. Any mild disagreement and suddenly people are ‘criminalising abortion’. Or are ‘transphobic’.

Finally, we’ve got the ‘no middle ground’. A mother is legally responsible for her child from birth. And adoption is a last resort. Uh, well, laws can be changed and we can have different opinions on what should be a ‘last resort’. Can people discuss compromise on that somehow? Apparently not.

Just as there is no discussion of compromise by TRA’s on single sex spaces, trans women are women, etc.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk on purity spirals.

Trade unionist & socialist here. I spent a lot of time with Communist Party of Britain folk, as a fellow traveller. I socialised with many of their senior leadership and initially I found them a refreshing change when I was being hounded & bullied by Trotskyist factions within my trade union.

But I soon discovered there is a deep vein of misogyny running through the CPB. Lots of co-ordinated bullying & hounding of women trade union activists. I applaud the CPB’s gender-critical position, and there are some fabulous women among their long-term members. But the leadership is dominated by elderly misogynists and until that changes I cannot vote for them.

Thank you, this is very interesting. Despite being a socialist myself I loved Rory Stewart’s biography and found his approach to politics fascinating. I too am a long-distance walker and I loved his approach to campaigning for his Penrith seat, which was to walk all over his constituency and speak to as many local people as possible. He genuinely seems to care about making people’s lives better, and as a junior minister he genuinely tried to make things better. It was clear he always put principles before party loyalty (hence his short career as an MP). I genuinely think it’s a real shame he’s no longer in politics, as I think we are all better off having genuinely principled, independent-minded MPs on both sides of the isle.

I have been terribly disappointed by his support for gender ideology. Your post gives a really good insight as to where he is coming from on that. Thank you.

@YourNoisyQuoter
Join the Communist Party of Britain

Will any land or property ownership be allowed or will all farmers have to rent off the state?
What will happen to Royal residences?

I agree with PP re: his family background being totally important to understand him. Especially about the "listening to the people vs guiding the people" thing. To the extent that I find Rory Stewart charming it's that I think he genuinely feels this as a responsibility - a duty - it's not that he cynically wants to order us all around but that he feels he is the leader of a flock.

Maybe more like a kindly priest who is a servant-leader in the sense of getting in amongst his congregation - visiting the poor with a food package - believing that he succeeds if they succeed - but there is no question that they are going to democratically vote on whether to worship God or Krishna!

Where I disagree is that I definitely do not think gender ideology is inherently a "small c conservative" thing to prioritise unless by "small c conservative" you are explicitly referring to the Cameronite consensus of like 2005-era values that were popular on the right at that time, many of which I would actually simply call "small l liberal" i.e. "the primary social values we want to conserve are freedom of speech, freedom from the state interfering in your family life" etc.

Liberalism has been an immense influence on the Tory party in the last few decades. I think Rory's adherence to gender ideology is much more related to he trusts elite opinion (for aforementioned hierarchy/birth reasons) and the elite opinion on this honestly-extremely-weird-and-with-no-answers-in-any-existing-religious-or-otherwise-guidance question at the time it suddenly popped up was "this is the new gay rights and we support it".

I know a lot of men who are "small c conservative" in the generic sense, in fact often calling themselves that as they are now Reform members ;) and none who believe in gender ideology. Not many are activists on the topic because they consider it an utterly stupid question that doesn't really affect them, but they are not confused on their answer. There are many variants of "small c conservative" ofc but I can think of few which unquestioningly put every man above every woman (see: migrant men in grooming gangs vs their local victims)

So I wonder if instead of "small c conservative", a better way of putting it would be "small-a aristocratic" - Rory elevates this small group of men because they are elites not because they are men. The class war is the only war, etc ;)

What a silly comment. It's perfectly possible to be both left/liberal leaning and a grown up, thanks. I grew up around mainly Tories, many of whom, particularly those who never left the area I grew up in, remain as myopic and parochial as they've always been. After all, just as unrealistic idealism and authoritarian zeal can be a feature of left-wing circles, small-minded backward-looking and traditionalist authoritarian thinking can be a feature of those on the right.

I'd say whether or not you're prepared to embrace uncomfortable facts or realities that may go against the usual narratives of your given 'tribe' is more a feature of maturity. In my experience, that does work both ways.

Don't get me wrong, I liked him and I agree with a lot of what you say. He was also very pleasant to deal with, which definitely couldn't be said for the other Tory ministers I worked with.

But I suppose his stance on gender is a reminder that we shouldn't put people on pedestals. No one is right about everything.

Great thread and I can really relate to you OP. I was absolutely shocked by the Tommy Robinson interview on Triggernometry, because I had completely bought the messaging from the mainstream media that he was a racist thug those views were beyond the pale. I have now a completely different view of him, and even less trust in the mainstream media.

I have found myself enjoying a lot of the Spectator content, which unnerved me at first, as I used to firmly think of myself as left wing (though fairly socially conservative).

I don’t know how I would describe my politics now. I wanted to vote SDP in the last election but they didn’t have a candidate where I live.

I’m trying to follow a range of different voices - I watch Triggernometry, Spectator tv, Novara media - any other recommendations that would complement these?

I agree, and the ministers I've dealt with have been a very mixed bag. I suppose I judge them on a number of levels, and ideology isn't the most important of those.

There's whether they take good decisions. That often goes against ideology. I've been impressed by Wes Streeting not just because he's made decisions I agree with, but because he's able to look at new evidence and change course on a pragmatic basis.

There's whether they're suited for the job. The thing I'd say about Rory is that I like having quirky and independent minded MPs, but I was never sure that he was suited to being a minister. He might have done better as a crusading backbencher. Peter Bottomley (who I worked with a million years ago) was a good minister, but in his long post-ministerial career he was really useful as an advocate for not very popular causes.

And I suppose there's whether they're personally pleasant. Lots of politicians are just jerks. Some aren't at heart, but feel they have to act that way to get ahead. It's a particular problem with young and ambitious MPs. So I always take a mental note when I notice a politician spontaneously taking the time to show some small kindness or courtesy to someone way down the food chain. That's why I have a soft spot for (believe it or not) Jeremy Hunt or Esther McVey.

It's not always the people you expect, not by any means.

I'd strongly recommend you try reading Jonathan Haidt's book: "The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion." And i think he's a better writer than Douglas Murray.

[Edit - don't want to be critical but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss somebody like Doglas Murray on the grounds they are a conservative - or a socialist for that matter. You should judge a person by what they say]

As a lifelong leftie myself it gave me a different perspective on how I look at different people's values and also on intolerance of other's views - which seems to be more a left wing characteristic than a right wing one. I think I'd describe Haidt as being "sensible" right of centre

And no - just because you recognise that someone has a valid point of view that you agree with on one issue, it doesn't mean you have to agree with them on everything. Only people on the left think that values are a package deal and that you have to accept all of them or none. Thinking people can discrimiante between good ideas and bad ones.

It just so happens Mumsnet interviewed Jonathan Haidt earlier this week - although on a completely different topic:

Thank you for that, I will definitely check out that book. And yes in hindsight, I would totally have dismissed the views of a conservative previously. It's only because of the trans issue that I've come across pp like Murray. I'm quite grateful and a bit humbled in a way, I guess I was quite happy in my little leftie echo chamber until some very astute posters on MN alerted me as to what was happening back in 2017 're the threat to women's rights from the trans ideology, and down a completely different rabbit hole I went...

Just "no" OP. The protest going to be about Lucy Connelly. That was a tweet encouraging people to burn down asylum hotels at a time of social unrest. And she pled guilty.

I support free speech. I also think that it should rightfully be illegal to incite violence. And the GC side should be careful not to align ourselves with racists and the far right.

The fundamental problem for feminists is the law enforcers not the law. It's totally bonkers Lineham being arrested etc.

Mesothelioma, gas explosions, rock falls, black lung...

There's at least two pieces of music written about pit disasters: Gresford, and The Trimdon Grange Explosion. Imagine 261 men from one village going to work one day and dying in the same incident. That's the kind of outcome we expect during wars because of enemy action, not during peacetime.

Coal mining is so dangerous that, in 1848, Parliament outlawed women and children from working in underground mines, and that ban has never been lifted.

Welcome to my TED talk. I will now demonstrate why you're using a false analogy.

1. The inquiry into Savita's death said that not aborting contributed to her death. I'm not going to second-guess an inquiry chaired by a literal professor of gynaecology.
2. Savita isn't the only woman who has died or been put at real risk of death because doctors felt hamstrung by abortion restrictions. There have also been cases in Texas. Laws that make a doctor worry about being arrested and jailed for trying to help a patient are laws that endanger patients.
3. Abortion differs substantially from transition because pregnancy poses a risk to a woman's physical health and abortion ends that risk. 40% of pregnancies have complications. Frequently, abortion needs to be carried swiftly to minimise the risks to the woman. By contrast, transition poses a risk to the transitioner's physical health and there's increasing evidence that it doesn't improve mental health outcomes

Laws that make a doctor worry about being arrested and jailed for trying to help a patient are laws that endanger patients is worth repeating. No doctor should be put in the position of fearing criminal charges for carrying out a medical procedure to protect a patient, and all abortion restrictions put doctors in that position to some extent.

Then there’s the redefining of words. ‘Pro-life’ has suddenly been defined as the extreme end of a more diverse set of beliefs.

No redefining here. Pro-choice means supporting access to safe legal abortion. Pro-life is the self-descriptor for those who want to outlaw or heavily restrict abortion. This has been the case for decades. If you believe that abortion should be legal but you think it's immoral, or you wouldn't have one yourself, etc then you are still pro-choice. Words have precise meanings and those meanings don't shift.

Finally, we’ve got the ‘no middle ground’. A mother is legally responsible for her child from birth.

Tell me that you don't know how legal responsibility and accountability work without telling me...

I can't recall the name of the US President who had "the buck stops here" displayed on his desk, but legal responsibility refers to who the buck stops with. Now, if the buck is described as stopping with all of five people, each of them will assume that one of the others will deal with it and none of them will, and then who do you blame when something goes wrong? In law, "who do you blame?" is pretty important. If the buck stops with one person, at most two[1], it's clear who has to step up and who is to blame when things go wrong. This is really important when it comes to children, so important that we have several Children Acts spelling who is responsible for looking after a child and under what circumstances the State should step in. Our lawmakers already considered this really carefully and came to a sensible conclusion: that mothers are generally most trustworthy with their children and so are the best first choice to be responsible for them.

And adoption is a last resort. Uh, well, laws can be changed and we can have different opinions on what should be a ‘last resort’.

Decades of experience of adoption, including the adoptions of the children of unwed mothers organised by mother and baby homes, and of fostering, have told us that adoption is not harmless to children and that children who stay with their birth parents usually have better outcomes than those who don't. The evidence doesn't care about your "different opinions".

[1]: Although Mumsnet is full of threads in which each parent assumed the other would do something and so neither of them did it, so the buck stopping with two people can be one too many.

suggest one solution fits all the problems of a particular case

Which isn't what I said. What I said is that restricting abortion endangers women's lives, giving Savita as one example.

failure to apply already existing judicial decisions permitting abortions if the mother’s life was in danger

Doctors shouldn't have to summon a legal team to determine whether case law will allow them to perform a medical procedure to save a patient's life. Thanks for supplying evidence to support my point that abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on doctors' decision-making.