Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Trans row threatens to overshadow Lib Dem conference

266 replies

IwantToRetire · 17/09/2025 20:38

Sir Ed Davey faces activist revolt over party rules that allow biological men to take women’s posts

The current rules allow those who “self-identify as women” to stand for party posts set aside for women, which the activists say dilutes the chance that biological women can reach the top of the party.

The vote will be put before conference on Saturday, but it is understood that trans rights activists will try to get it cancelled to avoid embarrassment. This is despite a YouGov poll showing that three-quarters of Lib Dem members do not support the party’s stance on allowing gender self-ID.

Full article at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/09/17/trans-row-threatens-to-overshadow-lib-dem-conference/

Also at https://archive.is/hykSr

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 09:17

What really gets me is how the politicians can't see it as the squirrel though? We could all see Farage suddenly wanging on about trans as a non-issue. Why did they decide to run with it? BBC reporting adding to the pressure? They have the ability to know it's 0.01% of the population or whatever and therefore presumably have the sense to see it wasn't a raging issue.

Why all come out tying colours to the mast?

LeftieRightsHoarder · 25/09/2025 09:46

Merrymouse · 21/09/2025 12:46

‘If you go down the biological route, you will uncover a minefield’'

I would say this level of stupidity was very male, if so many women didn't express similar views.

He apparently lives in a world where nobody knows their sex so nobody can tell whether copious bleeding from your nether regions is a sign that you have your period or are minutes from death.

I have to laugh, even though it’s such a serious matter. Just ludicrous. I could almost think the whole thing was a massive practical joke carried out to reveal who were the biggest arse-lickers in the world.

anyolddinosaur · 25/09/2025 10:01

@IwantToRetire All politicians lie, no-one trusts them. Most of them happily declare rubbish like women can have a penis. What has happened to our so called "educated" people that they go along with those lies? Our schools and universities are places where young people are indoctrinated with nonsense and a belief in their innate superiority. They are encouraged to denigrate those who keep the country running.

What have politicians in the main political parties done - managed decline. There have been quite a few stories of corruption. Starmer has tried to point out that we didnt get into this mess in 5 years and it will probably take longer to recover from it but no-one is listening. He lacks authority, he lacks charm.

Reform are a way to say stop patronising us, stop telling us lies, stop telling us our country is the root of all evil. He's a means to protest. The lib dems are trying to pick up some of that vote but go on talking down to people and telling them they are stupid and they wont pick up those votes.

Attack Farage for his privileged education, for also thinking women can have a penis, for wanting to abolish the NHS in its current form. Attack him for his lack of solutions to our economic problems. Most of all attack him by doing things that actually benefit Farage's supporters.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 10:25

Theswiveleyeballsinthesky · 25/09/2025 09:13

Quite! As we've said sooooo many times, if politicians are prepared to lie about something so fundamental & basic as biology ie that men can become women just be saying they are, then it's fair for ppl to assume they'll lie about anything if they choose too

theyre caught in a web of their own making!

If you meet someone new, start chatting to them and midway through the conversation they express their deeply felt belief that the world is flat then immediately you understand that they are detached from reality and unable to comprehend even the simplest of evidence.

It would not be unreasonable to assume that their options on other subjects could also detached from reality and be wary of everything that they say. Perhaps even treat them with contempt for wasting your time.

Why should a politician be treated differently?

RedToothBrush · 25/09/2025 10:32

Warning.

I am about to do a JKRowling and quote Hitler and Goebbels for the purposes of understanding why politicians tell obvious and deliberate huge lies.

It is an important propaganda technique which is well known and well understood. We know that Farage is well versed in understanding this due to his education and his understandings on the subject.

This is what wiki briefly describes the Big Lie as:

Big lie
The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchism.

Goebbells explicitly used the phrase and described it as such:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

  • Joseph Goebbels

Goebbels was actually talking about Churchill and his use of propaganda and didn't admit to telling lies but he clearly understood the concept and its use in war.

My understanding of the Big Lie and how when a lie is so big it can only maintain itself for so long before it collapses under the weight of its own bullshit is what has very much kept me going throughout. There are other reference points throughout the history of liberal democracy which essentially make the same point (Many references throughout key points in American and French history make similar parallels about the truth always coming through eventually).

Anyway, Goebbels was repeating something that Hitler had previously said in Mein Kampf, only in a rehashed and more clear way. You may be relieved to know you don't have to read Mein Kampf to get the Hitler's take on the same thing. Its on wiki, under 'Big Lie'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

(Yes I did it. I quoted it on MN. Many people on twitter are now imploding and saying MN is full of Nazis).

The point he makes is that people are swayed more by emotional arguments than logical / rational arguments. Thus 'Be Kind' always wins. Thus disaffection always wins. It is about how much you can wind up the public - this is a form of radicalisation and we should not be surprised when deliberately winding up the public, when you get a small minority taking it too far and becoming dangerous, violent, abusive, coercive extremists who have anti-social behaviour. Because they've literally been encouraged to go down this route.

Hitler had a disregard for the intelligence of the general public and thought they were much dumber than him and could be manipulated. Ironically it was a sentiment he shared with Churchill; "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Churchill's argument was the average voter simply did not fully grasp the complexities of political issues and thus putting such ideas to vote through democracy is problematic and may not be in the best interests of the public. Its a dangerous path - and Churchill is something of a paradox because he essentially was an authoritarian leader during the war as necessity demanded he acted at times outside normal democratic checks and balances - whilst also remaining an icon of the defence of liberal democracy. (He's not the only example of this paradox either).

This was all picked up during the Brexit Referendum that actually, Remain never stood a chance because their campaign was all about logic and reason and therefore never really connected with a lot of people because they didn't have an emotional connection to the arguments being presented to them. (Conversely this where you do have a bunch of pro-EU crazies who break this idea for exactly the opposite reason because they DID have an emotional connection to the EU. And they have behaved, at times, in a way which was just as questionable as some of the worst Brexiteers). This was replicated by Trump. And this was again repeated by Corbyn's 2017 campaign and he very nearly got it over the line and it caught people off guard as to just how close it was (The closeness was predictable if you saw the dynamics and the momentum he got). And once again by Trump in 2024.

This is how politics is currently operating and there is an inability to get to grips with it and to make people passionate about the pursuit of 'enlightment' in the sense of its true meaning - without ideological bias. This is going to be something that is difficult to enable at this point because of these almighty swings from one extreme to the other and because there are such deliberate propagandic attempts to undermine this concept.

When its said we are in the midst of a Culture War its very much the case. The first casualty of war is the truth. Worst still the supposed defenders of this - the media - have been some of the worst offenders and have undermined their own existance by taking the easy route of opinion and being influenced by activists rather than upholding their commitment to unbiased reporting. The move from journalism to opinion columns has be catatrophic in this regard.

Having said all this, despite the issues with democracy, the problem lies with unchecked power and abuses of power. The public aren't stupid in the sense that they can and do pick up on these as they become the victims of authoritarians using their power beyond reason and against them. And this is where the media should be acting (and aren't acting well enough at the moment). This suits the Big Lie because you get all the powers of authority working together to uphold the lie rather than take it down bit by bit.

There are very much examples of the Big Lie going on all over the place right now. Getting people to look out for them and spot them is probably were we should doing and making the point that no single political grouping is doing this. Its absoluetely bloody everywhere.

We know that the Tobacco Industry did it for years and years. We know that the oil companies look likely to have done the same. I suspect we will see some pretty ugly things come from food manufacturers of ultra processed foods in years to come in terms of how they deliberately pursued addictiveness. And of course there's gender.

And thats it. We understand propaganda in terms of it being something that gets used in war, but people struggle to understand how its used in political campaigning to the degree it is and they definitely have blind spots in how its used in advertising and marketing just to flog you shit. Our world today is dominated by propaganda in a way that didn't exist even 50 years ago. It is weaponised against the interest of the public on so many levels.

This is why I very much think media studies has an essential place in basic education. The focus on 'online safety' misses the point that 'safe' content is fraught with so much of this bullshit. We need to get better at navigating it all.

Its all quite the mess at the moment.

Anyway, why do people believe the Big Lie?

Because ultimately they want to and because it fits with their lived experience and they can't be arsed to try and see things from alternative perspectives because that involves effect.

I would argue that the problem isn't that people are stupid. Its that they are lazy. Understand this and you take a completely different attitude and response to the problems these kind of political movements create. Thats why thought terminating cliches and 248 character messages have dominated. People look for simple solutions to complex and difficult problems because they are easy. They want a short cut. Everyone is looking for the magic bullet (quite literally in certain cases which recent events show).

Thats why highly intelligent people are just as susceptible to these Big Lies.

They can't be bothered to look further than the end of their noses. They don't want to be challenged. They don't want to think deeply. They don't want to do hard things. Thats why many who haven't been entrenched and have just gone with the bandwagon come across a life experience which is different they are more open to that experience than you might expect, because they just haven't thought about the subject matter that much.

The big lie falls apart on contact with the brick wall of reality... Its a timeywhimey law of physics that can not be broken.

RedToothBrush · 25/09/2025 10:39

https://www.salon.com/2022/02/03/the-psychological-reason-that-so-many-fall-for-the-big-lie/

This article neatly explains why the LD strategy of repeating Farage and playing to his narrative rather than constructing a different one, is not a smart strategy as it actually reinforces the Big Lie because it repeats it. Psychologically it feeds the legitimacy of a Big Lie.

The Big Lie strategy in part relies on the absence of other narratives.

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 25/09/2025 10:49

To add to @RedToothBrush’s excellent explanations:

People don’t choose the “lazy” way because they are “lazy” in the value judgement way that the word is normally currently used. They choose it because that is how the human body/brain works - it works on the principle of “least effort.” You see it in every aspect of human behaviour, from low level acoustics in speech, to walking gait, to high level intellectual activity. Humans (and probably all animals, and nature in general) by default end up using the least effortful option that gets the maximal desired effect. If you think in evolutionary terms, this makes sense.

RedToothBrush · 25/09/2025 11:21

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 25/09/2025 10:49

To add to @RedToothBrush’s excellent explanations:

People don’t choose the “lazy” way because they are “lazy” in the value judgement way that the word is normally currently used. They choose it because that is how the human body/brain works - it works on the principle of “least effort.” You see it in every aspect of human behaviour, from low level acoustics in speech, to walking gait, to high level intellectual activity. Humans (and probably all animals, and nature in general) by default end up using the least effortful option that gets the maximal desired effect. If you think in evolutionary terms, this makes sense.

Path of least resistance, not got time, waste of limited resources etc

All phrases that could be used as part of this concept of 'lazy'.

lcakethereforeIam · 25/09/2025 11:52

Don't/can't think about it and get to 'be kind' while not doing it.

EdithStourton · 25/09/2025 12:19

@IwantToRetire
It is about a sense of victim hood about things being done to them to people who voted for it.
The thing is, people are getting what they DIDN'T vote for- because discussion wasn't allowed in public or polite society.
Very high immigration: the British public has consistently said that they want to see immigration brought down. It's gone up.
TWAW: once people understand what this means, they don't want it. It was foisted on us for years with shrieks of 'NO DEBATE!'

Plus, us yokels sit around in the countryside and discuss food security. We consider governments that wail about 'the nature emergency' and 'access to nature' while permitting a housing estate to be built on a flood plain (formerly water meadow), tearing up woodland to construct 'a garden community', and informing a local farmer that virtually all his land is going to be taken for a 'green energy' substation. We are a tiny voter base, so there is no chance that anyone 'important' is going to listen.

I used to be quite active politically. I have essentially given up. I despise almost all politicians, I think they are foolish, short-term, and treat us like idiots. I can't get involved, because there is no party that I agree with enough to give it my support.

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 25/09/2025 13:19

Arguably, brexit happened because people wanted an end to high immigration and were sick of being told that 'x couldnt happen/ y has to happen because of the EU'.

The remain campaign may have been fought on logically arguments, but given it didnt persuade enough people that the above was a small price to pay, it failed.

People voted for Boris, in part, to get brexit done and have a points based immigration system. Then we had the boris wave.

Once elected, Labour claim to be able to put an end to 'irregular' immigration by a one in one out policy.

A large part of the electrate have consistently voted against mass immigration, being ignored and seen their living standards fall.

We can argue that immigration doesnt lead to falling living standards, failing services and house ownership being out of reach, but we've demonstrated that mass immigration doesnt lead to increase living standards, either.

So why are so many so keen to support large scale immigration and call everyone against it uneducated, lazy, easily lead?

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 13:31

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 25/09/2025 13:19

Arguably, brexit happened because people wanted an end to high immigration and were sick of being told that 'x couldnt happen/ y has to happen because of the EU'.

The remain campaign may have been fought on logically arguments, but given it didnt persuade enough people that the above was a small price to pay, it failed.

People voted for Boris, in part, to get brexit done and have a points based immigration system. Then we had the boris wave.

Once elected, Labour claim to be able to put an end to 'irregular' immigration by a one in one out policy.

A large part of the electrate have consistently voted against mass immigration, being ignored and seen their living standards fall.

We can argue that immigration doesnt lead to falling living standards, failing services and house ownership being out of reach, but we've demonstrated that mass immigration doesnt lead to increase living standards, either.

So why are so many so keen to support large scale immigration and call everyone against it uneducated, lazy, easily lead?

So why are so many so keen to support large scale immigration and call everyone against it uneducated, lazy, easily lead?

I don't think most people are keen on supporting large scale immigration.

The problem is that large parts of our economy depend on people working for lower wages than people born in this country tolerate, either here or abroad.

PollyNomial · 25/09/2025 13:46

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 13:31

So why are so many so keen to support large scale immigration and call everyone against it uneducated, lazy, easily lead?

I don't think most people are keen on supporting large scale immigration.

The problem is that large parts of our economy depend on people working for lower wages than people born in this country tolerate, either here or abroad.

Everyone who voted for brexit was, even if they were told the opposite.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 14:12

EdithStourton · 25/09/2025 12:19

@IwantToRetire
It is about a sense of victim hood about things being done to them to people who voted for it.
The thing is, people are getting what they DIDN'T vote for- because discussion wasn't allowed in public or polite society.
Very high immigration: the British public has consistently said that they want to see immigration brought down. It's gone up.
TWAW: once people understand what this means, they don't want it. It was foisted on us for years with shrieks of 'NO DEBATE!'

Plus, us yokels sit around in the countryside and discuss food security. We consider governments that wail about 'the nature emergency' and 'access to nature' while permitting a housing estate to be built on a flood plain (formerly water meadow), tearing up woodland to construct 'a garden community', and informing a local farmer that virtually all his land is going to be taken for a 'green energy' substation. We are a tiny voter base, so there is no chance that anyone 'important' is going to listen.

I used to be quite active politically. I have essentially given up. I despise almost all politicians, I think they are foolish, short-term, and treat us like idiots. I can't get involved, because there is no party that I agree with enough to give it my support.

... while permitting a housing estate to be built on a flood plain (formerly water meadow)

I have seen three or four schemes like this in recent years.

In one, the parish council were asked by local government to approach local landowners for sites. The parish council 'did the right thing' and a 10 acre field was proposed with decent road frontage but with half the site subject to frequent flooding. The expectation was that perhaps 25 or 30 houses would be built along the dry roadside with the rest of the site left as flood plain.

The council gave permission for 180 houses across the entire site

The risk of flooding for those built on the actual flood plain was 'mitigated' by building them on raised concrete platforms with steps up to the front doors.

The foul drains for these properties were not built up above the floodplain and so are inundated with water whenever the river floods. This leads to raw sewage gushing out of the manhole covers around the rest of the village during flooding. Nothing like the sight of a cascade of turds, toilet paper and tampons outside the village CoOp to put you off your breakfast. To try to prevent this, during flooding, the council lays on a continuous chain of sucklifts that draw the sewage out of the pumping station and drive off to dump it somewhere else.

The further risk of storm water from the development increasing flooding was mitigated by adding an attenuation pond (that doubled as a 'nature reserve') The attenuation pond itself is within the 30 year flood plain and so provides zero attenuation in times of high flooding.

All because central government decided to set top down requirements for new housing builds and adjust the planning requirements leaving local government no way of controlling what actually gets built.

somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 14:21

LeftieRightsHoarder · 25/09/2025 09:46

I have to laugh, even though it’s such a serious matter. Just ludicrous. I could almost think the whole thing was a massive practical joke carried out to reveal who were the biggest arse-lickers in the world.

Just catching up after being out all morning. Love the Big Lie post, thank you.
I also think the lazy aspect is combined with the multiple strands. Human brain loves patterns and when we suspect there is a lie somewhere we try to patch it in with our beliefs, self selection bias can tie a lot together but some bits don't fit, annoyingly, into our beliefs. When that happens I think it's easier to drop all the threads and just go with the majority thought process rather than see it to the end. This is the other side of the lies, there are so many it is impossible to align them all to left or right or whichever box you feel is fuelling the lie (food companies link to big pharma, greenwashing of so many companies to look environmentally friendly etc). The Lie now also works through complexity of layering and conglomorates working together to obstifrucate the truth for profit. AI might be able to unpick it if it were fed the right data, but no data is 'pure' any more and no one knows what the "right data" is anyway.

somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 14:30

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY we have several of those builds here too. First sign is the stink of sewage on a local dog walk where they've not invested in sewage infrastructure so now it gets to the verge of overflowing in an AONB.
There's also one notorious developer who builds on flood plains here. Frequently trying to con local schools out of their older historical buildings and put them in said flood plains, trying to rip off the hospital under the guise of building specialist units (very cheaply of course) so he can take over land nearby... These people should be arrested, honestly. They damage community and land irreparably and it's always the councils and general public footing the bill for their greed.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 14:34

somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 14:30

@SlackJawedDisbeliefXY we have several of those builds here too. First sign is the stink of sewage on a local dog walk where they've not invested in sewage infrastructure so now it gets to the verge of overflowing in an AONB.
There's also one notorious developer who builds on flood plains here. Frequently trying to con local schools out of their older historical buildings and put them in said flood plains, trying to rip off the hospital under the guise of building specialist units (very cheaply of course) so he can take over land nearby... These people should be arrested, honestly. They damage community and land irreparably and it's always the councils and general public footing the bill for their greed.

Edited

.. trying to con local schools out of their older historical buildings

Yes, the old, if you give me your old 'not fit for purpose' buildings and play areas at the center of the village, I'll build you some soulless timber boxes on the outskirts accessible only by car trick

somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 14:44

Exactly that, councils must be getting backhanders but those who rubber stamp these should also be up for prison sentences when sewage leaks due to lack of planning happen - it's their job to double check it's sustainable after all. This slow erosion with zero accountability is where I can see the Farage movement working. BUT in my mind it's people like him profiting so I go down the opposing route to supporting him. I can't square the circle his supporters do when they look at him as some kind of "man of the people". He's the one cutting the "red tape" that would make these things (polluting the rivers and seas another prime example) possible.

JamieCannister · 25/09/2025 15:22

somethingnewandexciting · 25/09/2025 14:44

Exactly that, councils must be getting backhanders but those who rubber stamp these should also be up for prison sentences when sewage leaks due to lack of planning happen - it's their job to double check it's sustainable after all. This slow erosion with zero accountability is where I can see the Farage movement working. BUT in my mind it's people like him profiting so I go down the opposing route to supporting him. I can't square the circle his supporters do when they look at him as some kind of "man of the people". He's the one cutting the "red tape" that would make these things (polluting the rivers and seas another prime example) possible.

Edited

But voters who hear "cutting red tape" are more likely to be thinking about rules in their life or business that cost them / businesses time and money, and have the opposite affect to that which was intended

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 15:24

JamieCannister · 25/09/2025 15:22

But voters who hear "cutting red tape" are more likely to be thinking about rules in their life or business that cost them / businesses time and money, and have the opposite affect to that which was intended

Personally, I have much, much more red tape to deal with since Brexit.

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 25/09/2025 17:53

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 13:31

So why are so many so keen to support large scale immigration and call everyone against it uneducated, lazy, easily lead?

I don't think most people are keen on supporting large scale immigration.

The problem is that large parts of our economy depend on people working for lower wages than people born in this country tolerate, either here or abroad.

The problem is that large parts of our economy depend on people working for lower wages than people born in this country tolerate, either here or abroad.

A policy that floods the supply of labour leading to the surpression of wages. This is supporting business, not the work force, so its hardly surprising that lots of people affected arent thrilled with immigration.

EdithStourton · 25/09/2025 19:17

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 14:12

... while permitting a housing estate to be built on a flood plain (formerly water meadow)

I have seen three or four schemes like this in recent years.

In one, the parish council were asked by local government to approach local landowners for sites. The parish council 'did the right thing' and a 10 acre field was proposed with decent road frontage but with half the site subject to frequent flooding. The expectation was that perhaps 25 or 30 houses would be built along the dry roadside with the rest of the site left as flood plain.

The council gave permission for 180 houses across the entire site

The risk of flooding for those built on the actual flood plain was 'mitigated' by building them on raised concrete platforms with steps up to the front doors.

The foul drains for these properties were not built up above the floodplain and so are inundated with water whenever the river floods. This leads to raw sewage gushing out of the manhole covers around the rest of the village during flooding. Nothing like the sight of a cascade of turds, toilet paper and tampons outside the village CoOp to put you off your breakfast. To try to prevent this, during flooding, the council lays on a continuous chain of sucklifts that draw the sewage out of the pumping station and drive off to dump it somewhere else.

The further risk of storm water from the development increasing flooding was mitigated by adding an attenuation pond (that doubled as a 'nature reserve') The attenuation pond itself is within the 30 year flood plain and so provides zero attenuation in times of high flooding.

All because central government decided to set top down requirements for new housing builds and adjust the planning requirements leaving local government no way of controlling what actually gets built.

And they wonder why the electorate has lost faith in the political process and is turning to a worrying mix of utter apathy and noisy protests.

DEFRA is frankly not fit for purpose. It allowed through the flood plain building on appeal. And it allowed a new housing estate in a conservation area next to a much-loved local footpath while acknowledging that it would diminish the conservation area.

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 19:48

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 25/09/2025 17:53

The problem is that large parts of our economy depend on people working for lower wages than people born in this country tolerate, either here or abroad.

A policy that floods the supply of labour leading to the surpression of wages. This is supporting business, not the work force, so its hardly surprising that lots of people affected arent thrilled with immigration.

This is supporting business, not the work force

In part, yes, but immigrants also work in public services, and tax payers don't want want to pay more tax, and it's not as though Farage wants to protect worker's rights.

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 19:48

EdithStourton · 25/09/2025 19:17

And they wonder why the electorate has lost faith in the political process and is turning to a worrying mix of utter apathy and noisy protests.

DEFRA is frankly not fit for purpose. It allowed through the flood plain building on appeal. And it allowed a new housing estate in a conservation area next to a much-loved local footpath while acknowledging that it would diminish the conservation area.

DEFRA has undergone a multi pronged attack - chiefly that government has reduced staffing to the point that there is no one left to do increasing amounts of work. The assumption in favour of development has not helped either.

I can still remember the shock when I first heard that wandering around for a couple of weeks scooping up the protected wildlife into a pillowcase and then dumping it onto an unregulated 'receptor site' was now accepted 'mitigation'

These are the sort of tone deaf things that lead rural communities to distrust the main parties and look to the fringes

SlackJawedDisbeliefXY · 25/09/2025 20:03

Merrymouse · 25/09/2025 19:48

This is supporting business, not the work force

In part, yes, but immigrants also work in public services, and tax payers don't want want to pay more tax, and it's not as though Farage wants to protect worker's rights.

.. but immigrants also work in public services,

True, but this statement is never qualified with the percentage of migrants that work in public services. I have no idea what the number is and am not sure how you would go about working it out accurately. It would be useful to know though.

Government seeks population increase as it brings a short term boost from house building as well as longer term income from personal tax, property tax etc.

Government has to seek more because they have already borrowed money based on assumed levels of growth. They (we) are already in the position where they can't pay the interest on the loans that they have already have.

We are like the gambler that keeps pumping the rent money into a Jackpot machine hoping that eventually it will pay out big before the landlord arrives

At some point the bubble has to burst - the question is now or further down the road when it is stretched even bigger.