Reasons for not moving right like young men

[Warmlight1]

Are women put off the right because of outright boorishness and right wing female Mps who are promoted withing a very constrained patriarchy and consequently end up not making sense? Is it also to do with the ingressing on women's right by the ultra religious?
Are public services more important to women than men? Was specifically female leadership significant in New Zealand during the pandemic and ultimately safer and was that about gender?
Or something else?
Brexit?
Why is there a difference of direction?

I think what you are describing is what we have both on the left and right politically in the west.

What people argue about in day to day politics is the small beans. Questions like, how do we support people who need it without it ballooning out of control or creating an underclass, or how do we regulate business to protect people without making it impossible, or what kinds of services are generally best run privately and which best run publicly. And there aren't absolutes so much as trade-offs, and the best balance can change over time as technology or other factors change.

But it does leave that part of the left that is really invested in their political identification being distinct from the right in a bit of a quandary, if they aren't offering something radically differernt. So they look to the social/identity elements.

I suspect the reasons for women and men having differing approaches is somewhat down to the things we've already discussed on the thread around security and independence, but it has been exacerbated but other factors. Maybe it's mainly the educational element. Or maybe its the activist personality elements. I don't think it's very healthy for society to have such a gap whatever the cause is..

I think there is certainly some of that, lack of trust but also lack of an evident plan.

However, the fact that so many aren't actually prepared to discuss any new structural approach to what seems to be a fatal systemic problem suggest to me that it isn't just that.

I think of you surveyed the people who support reform you would find a wide range of economic views and some that definitely mesh with a more left wing idea of the tradeofs that could be made for sure. Likewise left wing voters

I think that the people setting policy in Reform (or the conservatives) are quite distinct in their thinking to "the left" though. They are very clearly from the Thatcherite school of thought (maybe more anti globalisation than Thatcher). It's mostly business leaders, former bankers and old school Tories and the policies reflect that. Which isn't evil or bad. It's very much how someone like my mum sees economics and she's a lovely intelligent person. But it is distinct from parties like the Greens who are much more traditionally left (in the UK 20th century tradition not soviet Russia).

So in a weird way actually, a lot of the old political lines (along tax versus spend) are back suddenly. What is different I think is the diversity of thinking among the people supporting them. There is a bit of a "long tail" effect and you have people with very niche (if carefully thought about) economic theories across the political spectrum of voters. Plus some people might vote/not vote for a party based on their attitude to cultural issues. I would struggle to vote for the Greens because of their stance on women's rights though I probably mesh best with their views on the economy and energy. Someone else could not vote for them for opposite reasons.

I've lived in the EU and experienced their health systems. They're... Fine. There are quite big differences between Dutch attitudes to health care and French treatments but that's cultural not structural. And there are things about the Dutch system I like more than the UK and vice versa but I think those differences are again more culture (Dutch people are weird about pain relief).
I wouldn't say overall the systems work better than in the UK though. At least at the user level. And it costs each person more overal. I also disliked having to do paperwork for hospital visits. But they are having the exact same conversations about how to solve problems like the increasing burden of elderly care. The fact is, regardless of the model of health care, it's getting more expensive everywhere that people are living for longer. I don't think switching to the Dutch or French insurance systems would fix those issues. Any more than the Dutch switching to a centralised NHS system would fix their problems. It's a distraction from the real problem which is people living longer but not necessarily in better health.

So I guess I would be interested in what the fatal systemic problem is in your view, and how switching to an insurance model would fix it...

So, what I have noticed is that Canada, which has pretty much the same concept as the NHS, seems to be having very similar problems in terms of problems finding staff, facilities being inadequate, etc. A lot of that is money but also staff being stretched too thin. In the sense that even with as much money as you want, if you can't find enough people to be doctors or for other roles that is a limit.

Age is a factor everywhere, but there is also a massive increase in expectation around what constitutes necessary health care. The other factor is technology, so much more is possible now than it was two generations ago.

I think you could make a good argument that these are in a significant way about cultural attitudes to health, but I suppose my sense is that the model, which has existed for a few generations now, is a big part of what teaches us to think that way. There is very little sense of our own health being something we are fundamentally responsible for, because we are simply receivers of care to which we are entitled.

I think what we are going to find in the end is that we have to scale back what counts as necessary health care which the state pays for to something closer to what people had in mind when publicly funded health services were first being developed. And maybe something like an insurance model would put more sense of responsibility into the hands of the individual around that. I'm not wedded to that particular approach but something different needs to happen.

I think French/German people for example are way more likely to go to the doctors for ailments than British people are though. Dutch people have quite a masochistic approach to health care but that's less the insurance system, more a Calvanist hangover IMO.
In fact, that idea that you shouldn't "waste resources" or social judgement of people who go to A and E for stupid things is quite uniquely British (maybe Canadian too I have no idea.aboit there). Likewise arguments about people taking personal responsibility for health. The Dutch are healthy but way less focused on the personal responsibility thing. I think it's because of the view of the NHS as a shared resource that we have those approaches.

I can't see switching to an insurance model would help because, the way it works in the EU, the whole point is that it's affordable for everyone to go to the doctor. You can call an ambulance out for a stupid reason and the insurance company will still cover it. Or go to the emergency room in the Netherlands when you could have gone to your Huisarts. Insurance will still pay and people would be absolutely baffled to know strangers would disapprove of this. So I don't think an insurance model would lead to less wasting of resources unless it was more like the American system where people are more likely to pay out of pocket. And I don't want that system because it means people avoid care because they can't afford it not because they don't need it.

Actually what a lot of Dutch hospitals do have is a 24 hour Huisarts (equivalent of a GP) based inside the AandE. So people who should really have gone to the huisarts get redirected there. And fines for missed appointments. Both those things work well IMO but could be implemented in the NHS without overhauling everything.

I find at the moment that even within many political groupings there is so much variation it is really hard to pin down economic approaches.

In terms of the main parties, I am not sure I can really see any substantial differernce between the groups that might actually be in a position to govern, even if Reform were to get in I think they will find their hands are pretty tied as well. If the Greens were to win it would be the same.

But in terms of people slotting themselves into a political ideology, it's kind of all over the place. There is liberalism on both the right and left, localist thinking on right and left, big government top down thinking on both right and left.

The problem all the parties are dealing with seems to be productivity, whether because they think that will enrich people so they don't need many government services government, or because they want people to be able to pay taxes to fund government services.

We've seen something like the GPs in ERs you describe here. It is usually called something like "urgent care clinic." It has some utility but unfortunately doesn't fix the problem of far too few GPs so people are relying on these clinics for all their basic care.

I suppose what I think with insurance based systems is that people are seeing what their care costs the system. I do though think you can, at least theoretically, have a co-pay system that is reasonable and is covered fully for lower income people. I do think there is a psychological difference between "affordable" and "free".

I think fees for missed appointments are a good idea all round.

That does sound awful. And yes I agree, the Blairite ecosystem of talking-shops acted as a mask for his own power, rather than as a genuine transfer of power down to ordinary people. I guess perhaps, "no power without accountability" might be a better formulation?

You can blame Reform supporters however you like, but you can't get away from the simple fact that it is the Left who are shafting women's rights.
So true, it is happening now. in parliament there are many women who could help but there is not support for women or women's lives.
Trade Unions are all by definition Left Wing, they failing to support women. The nursing unions refused point blank to support Peggie or Mellie or the Darlington.
In Bristol The Left wing Councillors refuse to allow women to speak unless they agree to toe the Party Line.

The new head of Unite has said "there isn't any argument" that she could be presented with that would change her mind on TWAW.
It's this reveal that is at the heart of the modern left's move from secularism to full on trans/intersectional neo-religion/caste, and informs and permeates everything the left and practically every left politician (with the few glaring exceptions like Rosie Duffield) does, says and believes.
Yes, Reform, with or without the help of the Tories may threaten women re welfare cuts etc, but we see in the actions of Phillipson Streeting re SC ruling inertia and PB trial, unions like Unite treating nurses as if they're BNP candidates from the 90s 00s, that the left has totally absolved themselves of any claims to be women's champions.
Sure, one can believe Reform will/might/likely worse, across areas like welfare, NHS, the economy.
But it's almost impossible to claim Labour or the others can hold a candle to the likes of Barbara Castle then, Rosie Duffield today, re fighting for women's rights on a philosophical as well as practical level.

The new head of Unite has said "there isn't any argument" that she could be presented with that would change her mind on TWAW.

Bloody hell! With a closed mind like that she's bound to excel in what's currently Leftist politics where feelings are more important than actual facts 🤦‍♀️

Trumpian.

Apologies for bringing this thread up again but this is an interesting point that I've seen raised a lot recently, but I feel it's too simple an explanation re black families.

I've read this argument re black conservatives from Sowell and others but I think it's more complex that that. Authors from E Franklin Frazier to Abraham Kardiner to Kenneth Clark and others were reporting higher rates of disengaged fathers and full-on absent fathers in black families dating back to the 1930s.

Daniel Moyinhan wrote his famous report about black fathers and their absence un the early 1960s, and the LBJ welfare policies were in response to that. You can certainly criticise their effect, but on the other hand, if they created the problem, why the Moyinhan Report? Imo the evidence overall shows that the roots go deeper though the 1960s sexual revolution and welfare changes did escalate it.

Yes, Theodore Dalrymple would argue similar for the white underclass in 1990s Birimgham where he worked as a doctor, for one. I do think with some black conservatives there can be an element of almost conspiracy style thinking (it was all engineered to hurt black people) which links to wider conspiracy suspicions in the black community. It's fully understandable why these suspicions would develop but the fact it's a wider pattern suggests to me it's probably more an issue of bad policies than racially targeted ones

I might be an anomaly. I used to be super left wing but am now more centre-right. I think everyone has their own journey even if we can notice certain trends

In terms of why women are mostly gone to the left I think it is because the left prioritizes welfare services and women are bigger uses of those services.

I'm not British but is getting undressed in front of others really part of someone's job? Like I have lots of old self-harm scars on my leg so I honestly couldn't do that as career if I was required to undress in front of others (the trans issue aside)

You might want to read the threads for Darlington and the SP case which explain why it is necessary for nurses to change their clothes at work, and the issues involved. They're easy to find and quite a few, lots of information.

But they are not legally required to undress in front of other people. They can use a cubicle/curtain or something else. I can't imagine HR saying "No you have to take your clothes off in front of your coworkers"

I'm not going to argue what's all over many threads, you can read all those discussions there. They've been had many times.

You don't have to argue, the facts are clear...

Do nurses have to get undressed in front of other nurses in the uk changing rooms?

No — nurses in the UK are not required to undress in front of other nurses in changing rooms.

In NHS hospitals and most private healthcare settings, staff changing areas are typically designed with privacy in mind. What this looks like varies by hospital, but usually includes things like:

Individual changing cubicles or curtained areas
Lockers in shared rooms but separate spaces to change
Toilets or accessible private rooms you can use instead

In some older facilities, you might have a more open shared room, but even then, staff are generally expected to change discreetly (e.g., underclothing kept on, or using a towel/gown), not fully undress in front of others.
Importantly:

There is no policy requiring communal undressing
Staff can usually request privacy or use an alternative space if they’re uncomfortable

Employers have a duty under workplace health and safety and dignity policies to provide reasonable privacy
If someone did feel pressured to undress openly in front of colleagues, that would generally be considered inappropriate and something they could raise with a manager, union rep, or HR.

I'm afraid AI hasn't got a clue about this. It's just guessing what the situation is for nurses' changing rooms in UK hospitals. DW didn't have individual changing facilities in any of the many hospitals she worked in. Fortunately there were separate men's and women's changing rooms though.

So there was no way for people to get changes unless taking their clothes off in front of each other? No cubicles at all? Sorry I just don't buy that, sounds like a HR violation if not a slam-dunk sexual harrassment claim.