Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
I truly deeply want to be wrong about the Tories winning Hartlepool. Paul Williams is a great guy and was a good MP. Its just that with his People's Vote history and Labour Party baggage, for him to win would be to reverse the tide.
He did it before when we took Stockton South in 2017. Nobody expected to win that one. Perhaps a similar shock can be pulled off.
But on the basis of UNS a Tory win in Hartlepool implies a national lead in excess of 20% - such as what we were seeing a year ago. Current polls are not showing that - indeed on the basis of UNS they all imply an increased Labour majority there.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
I'm not a traditionalist. I oppose traditionalism.
I support the Tories despite their traditionalism, not because of it.
If you want to consider traditionalism you need to look at other people, not me.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
For most people transgenderism isn't an issue. In the sense that they couldn't give a toss. What are issues for them is health, education, law & order, etc. So when a party spends it's time wibbling on about trans rights, bedroom tax, Palestine and other stuff that is of zero interest to the voter, ignoring the issues that do matter to them, no surprise that they cast their votes elsewhere.
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
On the other hand, many people who switched to Labour in 1964 & 1966 clearly switched back to the Tories in 1970- only to desert them again in 1974 for Labour and the Liberals. Working class voters who swung behind Thatcher in 1979 - and continued to vote Tory throughout the 1980s - switched back to Labour in the 1990s and subsequent elections.
The Hartlepools were very competitive from 1924 - 1970. Even after then, there was always a fair size right wing vote.
What clinched it for the Conservatives in 1959, was choosing Commander John Kerans, who commanded HMS Amethyst.
The complacency and hubris shown by Tories is as palpable as it is reminiscent of other untouchable administrations in the past.
If you have seriously read this thread you know that is simply not true.
Eh? I’ve read it.
The stuff about the electorate not caring, it all being priced in, that Tory party values being more in line, the opposition being weak and divided and that people will vote for Boris anyway is truly complacent and straight out of the New Labour copybook in its final years.
The Tories are delivering a hugely successful vaccine roll-out. Voters really like it. The polls reflect this - both in party vote share and personal ratings. None of this should be a surprise. Extrapolating that to a much wider narrative when prior to the roll-out Labour was getting opinion poll leads and the PM's personal ratings were deeply negative is a bit of a stretch. I think that the 10 million plus people who voted Labour across the UK in 2019 were mistaken to back a party led by Jeremy Corbyn, but I struggle to believe that they and the millions of others who supported the Greens and the LibDems are all anti-British wokeists. I think it's a whole lot more complicated than that.
This some on this site are obsessed with ‘woke’ people on Twitter, it’s oddly triggering for them. It’s even more odd given that the main thrust of these arguments is that those people are a small minority.
My Dad hates all the so-called “woke” (goodness me I hate that word!) stuff and even he acknowledged it does not actually matter.
Labour is always going to be more “woke” than the Tories. It’s a left wing party, everyone knows that. Blair was “woke”, look at some of the things he did.
It’s a distraction and not going to make a difference between Labour losing or not losing. Labour lost in 2019 because Labour (we) put up a historically unpopular leader offering historically unpopular policies and offering to cancel a vote which the voters voted for.
Labour was very “woke” in 2017 and got 40% of the vote - I know it lost.
Labour was very “woke” in 2015 and 2010 and held the Red Wall in both elections.
Labour has to put forward a programme of polices and ideas that appeal to the average voter and prove it can offer something for the 2020s, in a way that won’t ruin the country.
Blair was right when he said we shouldn’t even get into these silly culture wars. They’re irrelevant.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
You have a flag but no pole?
Oh dear. When did that happen?
In the same position. I was awarded a US flag for something I did (forget what or by whom). It is nicely folded in a triangle, in a box somewhere.
Sounds like it's staying there then, Tim. No pole, no fly.
But Philip used to have a pole and now doesn't. This is what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
The rope on my flagpole broke a couple of years ago, and I haven’t got around to fixing it yet. I really should as I liked having a flagpole as I’ve been interested in the history of flags from a young age. I used to fly the stars and stripes most days, and England, Ireland and Wales on their respective saints days and the flag of Europe on Europe Day. Our next door neighbour is Portuguese and he flies the American, Portuguese and European flags from a triple flagpole he made (he’s a metalworker by trade).
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
The problem is that it’s not about freedom of speech, we have seen this countless times whereby what people really mean is freedom from consequences.
It’s a lovely day out there, great for a run. Now I’m off back out.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
For most people transgenderism isn't an issue. In the sense that they couldn't give a toss. What are issues for them is health, education, law & order, etc. So when a party spends it's time wibbling on about trans rights, bedroom tax, Palestine and other stuff that is of zero interest to the voter, ignoring the issues that do matter to them, no surprise that they cast their votes elsewhere.
I don't disagree.
But it was @MaxPB who brought up Mermaids and the like.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
I always enjoy @roger for his refreshing candour! Not that I always agree with them...
I think his point is that a Labour Party that abandons internationalism, compassion to asylum seekers, and a desire for social justice is one which deserves to lose. If abandoning those principles in pursuit of an elusive demographic drunk on right wing populism is the plan, then it is better to lose Hartlepool. I understand that feeling.
Yep. We should try and win back the Wall but not chase it to the exclusion of all else.
Translatioon: you'd rather fall back on core votes in your core Metropolitan seats, and stay there, rather than compromise with the electorate to win.
Gallowgate has answered (accurately) on my behalf.
But to elaborate. The notion that the WWC Leavers who went Tory and delivered the Wall and the landslide n Dec 19 are all driven by a mix of Brexit-fueled nationalism and socially conservative woke hatred is just a stereotype. Many are, no question, but many are not. Lots of them will place hard-headed economic concerns at the top of their agenda. They don't need Labour to ape Tory values in order to take another look at the party. They need an offering in their clear material interests from a Labour party that looks ready for government. These men and women are Labour's target. Win those votes back and therefore some seats back up there in the north and midlands. Plus keep the new base. Plus win a chunk of general floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of Boris Johnson. That's the strategy. Goal - Labour largest party in a hung parliament after the next GE. I think it has a good chance of working but not as good a chance as the market thinks. It's trading at 2.6 right now. For me it should be around 3.5.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
For most people transgenderism isn't an issue. In the sense that they couldn't give a toss. What are issues for them is health, education, law & order, etc. So when a party spends it's time wibbling on about trans rights, bedroom tax, Palestine and other stuff that is of zero interest to the voter, ignoring the issues that do matter to them, no surprise that they cast their votes elsewhere.
I don't disagree.
But it was @MaxPB who brought up Mermaids and the like.
Because that's what the Labour party is under Starmer. All Labour have done since Corbyn is be "not Corbyn" but Labour didn't just lose because of Corbyn, it's everything cultural.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
They're also trapped by the tax and benefit system.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
They're also trapped by the tax and benefit system.
Absolutely. I was going to edit that in but you saved me the trouble!
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
For most people transgenderism isn't an issue. In the sense that they couldn't give a toss. What are issues for them is health, education, law & order, etc. So when a party spends it's time wibbling on about trans rights, bedroom tax, Palestine and other stuff that is of zero interest to the voter, ignoring the issues that do matter to them, no surprise that they cast their votes elsewhere.
I don't disagree.
But it was @MaxPB who brought up Mermaids and the like.
The fact is that even if Labour MPs and activists stop "wibbling on about trans rights, the bedroom tax, Palestine" etc, the Labour leader won't actively defend @MaxPB 's right to say that trans women are not real women because if you believe trans women ARE real women, that is hate speech.
That's separate from the debate about bathrooms and trans children and what not.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
For most people transgenderism isn't an issue. In the sense that they couldn't give a toss. What are issues for them is health, education, law & order, etc. So when a party spends it's time wibbling on about trans rights, bedroom tax, Palestine and other stuff that is of zero interest to the voter, ignoring the issues that do matter to them, no surprise that they cast their votes elsewhere.
I don't disagree.
But it was @MaxPB who brought up Mermaids and the like.
Because that's what the Labour party is under Starmer. All Labour have done since Corbyn is be "not Corbyn" but Labour didn't just lose because of Corbyn, it's everything cultural.
But it isn't "culture"
Being opposed to trans people is not culture. It isn't British culture to oppose trans people.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
The point @Casino_Royale was making is the two legacy parts of the Labour coalition (three if you include the specific appeal to minorities).
I think Labour can probably manage to bridge 2 but not 3. It’s not easy to resolve the problem and I’m not going to promise to have a magic solution for you 😁
Labour's problem - solutions welcome - from the point of view of a patriot who would happily vote for Attlee:
There are now 4 sorts of English Labour seat (and though this simplifies, it is much truer than is comfortable):
a) SUPERB: super urban, social housing, payroll vote, poor, benefits (Bootle, Knowsley)
b) BAME: self explanatory (East Ham, Bethnal Green)
c) TOYNBEES: self regarding, educated, student, Guardian, too posh to vote Tory, private school, wealth, nowheres (Putney, Cambridge, Hampstead)
d) GUNAL: Grim up north, always Labour (Hartlepool).
The first three are self contained enclaves with little in common. The first three categories are basically safe for Labour for now, but there are not nearly enough of them. Every single seat in the last category has drifted or is drifting.
Only a handful of Labour held seats fall outside these categories. Ipswich was one in 2017. Look at it now.
The huge hole in this list is the Public Sector Payroll Vote.
It seems to me that is fairly evenly spread across the country, (NHS, Schools, local government) but with pockets of greater significance in some urban areas.
Public sector workers lean Labour, but there's a signficiant Conservative minority. It's a small sample size, but the latest MORI poll has Labour ahead 7% among public sector workers, 10% behind among private sector workers.
Yes. I find this public sector all vote Labour. Private sector overwhelmingly vote Tory rather strange. It isn't true, but is regularly asserted as fact. Isn't half the cleavage age is.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
Mermaids doesn’t seem to be winning this argument.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colliding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Just because your wife, who is the same age as me it seems, opposes such things, doesn't mean everyone does. I'm talking about people in their late teens and early 20s who it seems are overwhelmingly accepting of self-ID and people's rights to be whoever they want to be.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
I have to say that if Labour fails to hold Hartlepool, Starmer was really stupid to hold the by election at this time . Whatever embarrassment might have emerged from the former MP's appearance before an Employment Tribunal, would hardly have compared with what happened at the Onasanya trial in early 2019. To the surprise of most , Labour did hang on to Peterborough at the subsequent by election. This byelection could easily have been put off until the Autumn - by which time the Johnson vaccine bounce will be likely to have dissipated and overshadowed by his other troubles.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Just because your wife, who is the same age as me it seems, opposes such things, doesn't mean everyone does. I'm talking about people in their late teens and early 20s who it seems are overwhelmingly accepting of self-ID and people's rights to be whoever they want to be.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
That's not an election winning coalition though is it, which brings us back around to the original point I was making. Labour needs to, in the words of Lynton Crosby, get the barnacles of the boat.
I think this constituency is a genuine 50:50 call so if you are getting better odds on Labour that is where the value is. Normally it would be a walk in the park for an Opposition but as David identifies the unknown factor is the large Brexit Party vote.
It's interesting that Boris took time out to campaign there. I doubt he would have done that if he wasn't getting told that it was a possible win. But Labour, surely, aren't going backwards from the disaster of 2019, are they?
It is not Labour going backwards, its what happens to Brexit party voters. The Labour vote share will surely increase but probably not by enough to hold off the Tory vote.
If Labour lose they are going backwards. From a disastrously low base. These Brexit voters were in the main 1 time supporters pissed off that the likes of Starmer was frustrating the democratic will. If Labour has not found a way to re-engage with those pissed off voters now that Brexit is done they are in trouble.
It is a fundamental problem that we have discussed on here many times. Labour are now essentially a metropolitan liberal elitist party and have those priorities in the same way that say Hillary had in the US. It means a lot of success in London and other University dominated cities but it means very little to traditional Labour heartlands. It is bizarre that Eton educated Boris speaks something closer to these peoples' language than the leader of a party set up by Trade Unions but it is a fact. If that metropolitan elite want back to power they need to broaden their base.
I think David's leader is accurate - like him I hear snippets suggesting the Tories have a decent chance in Hartlepool, but not a 60% chance.
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
Come on Nick, the Red Wall IS the Labour Party.
If we don't appeal to working class communities across the country then we might as well pack up and go home.
Some might feel more comfortable hand wringing with the north London dinner party set, but we won't form a government by fixating on the pet causes of those who can stroll through life with nothing more to worry about than whether Waitrose will have a supply of Good Brie.
Might "WAS the Labour Party" be better there?
The point was made a few days ago that places like Mansfield have very high home ownership.
How sticky will these new "working class Tories" be?
High levels of home ownership = zero interest in the bedroom tax.
Perhaps we get so much of this sort of thing because there hasn't been a proper war here for so long - there are blokes out there with an urge to show their heroism, their enormous pluck under fire, but with no outlet for it.
"The woke mob can do their damndest but I will not be moved. I will continue to use only one sheet of bog roll to wipe my arse."
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
Logically they should push them then. Either they get to implement them or their opponents implement them but they get implemented
Unless their metropolitan voters prefer cheaper services and don’t mind exploiting the workers?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Just because your wife, who is the same age as me it seems, opposes such things, doesn't mean everyone does. I'm talking about people in their late teens and early 20s who it seems are overwhelmingly accepting of self-ID and people's rights to be whoever they want to be.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
That's not an election winning coalition though is it, which brings us back around to the original point I was making. Labour needs to, in the words of Lynton Crosby, get the barnacles of the boat.
It isn't an election winning coalition now. It may be an election winning coalition in 10-20 years.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Just because your wife, who is the same age as me it seems, opposes such things, doesn't mean everyone does. I'm talking about people in their late teens and early 20s who it seems are overwhelmingly accepting of self-ID and people's rights to be whoever they want to be.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
That's not an election winning coalition though is it, which brings us back around to the original point I was making. Labour needs to, in the words of Lynton Crosby, get the barnacles of the boat.
It isn't an election winning coalition now. It may be an election winning coalition in 10-20 years.
If it is, the Tories will be sat there waiting then.
If PB Tories repeat that Labour members all despise the UK and the British flag then it must be true I guess.
As I have said time and time again, the majority of Labour members do not. It's the loud minority that should the loudest that make the headlines, despite the fact they no longer have any influence over the party, or its direction.
I really do not like it being implied that I somehow hate the UK, or the flag. I don't, I love this country. I just happen to think its best days are yet to come - there is always more to do.
They don't all but enough of them do and they're not being disowned.
On this very site we've got the likes of Roger and Kinabalu that hate their country and countrymen, hate the flag, find flying the flag to be obnoxious and would leave the Party if it were accepted or normal.
You are more moderate. But you need to make a choice, do you wish to align yourself with the likes of them, or the likes of Hartlepool and Red Wall voters.
If you want the likes of Red Wall voters to give you the time of day you need to disown those who openly despise them. You can't have both.
Quite - Roger has today declared he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because he doesn't like the people who live there. That needs to sink in to a lot of current Labour supporters on here. No-one has yet disowned his remarks. No-one.
"Disown his remarks" good grief.
Big G, others and I disown HYUFD's remarks on this site all the freaking time.
So?
Nobody expects you to "disown his remarks". We don't assume that you all have the same opinion as him on a subject he is quite frankly mocked for on a regular basis.
You don't assume it because we disassociate ourselves from such remarks.
When so many on your side of politics make it clear that they hate segments of our society - and you do nothing to disassociate yourself from that - then the implicit assumption becomes that you're at least content to let that slide.
When the Labour Party is happy to give the whip to those who call ethnic minorities "racial gatekeepers" or those who clearly hate their own flag and nation, then what are others supposed to think?
If a Tory MP expressed such hatred I'd want the whip removed immediately.
We have a Prime Minister who described Black Africans as picaninnies and who said they would be better off ruled by white Europeans; one who claimed that Barack Obama hated Britain because his father was a Kenyan. I believe he still holds the Conservative whip.
LOL. This again?
We have a PM who satirised Blair's Imperial Progress to avoid the UK where he was unpopular, by using Victorian Language.
Quite appropriate.
I think this is actually one of Labour's problems. They focus far too much on attacking fabricated Straw men rather than the Govt as it is.
Yes, of course: racism is fine when the Tories do it!
Satire is not racism.
It may have gone over your head though.
Missed the one about Barack Obama. If you look at the original piece, that one is, it seems to me, a lie. He did not make the claim *.
Of course the goons who write opinion for the Indy, the Mirror, or the Express will rewrite it with wax crayons. It's what they do, but that does not make it true.
And if you use that umpteen years later as some sort of trump card in a debate, rather than making a case, it reflects straight back on you.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
More than half of people in the UK have had a Covid-19 vaccine, according to official stats.
At least 517,914 new doses added to the total yesterday - only 🏴 & NI have reported so far, 🏴 no longer reports on Saturdays and 🏴 is mysteriously late.”
In response to DavidL's first point, obviously parties always want to regain lost support. But I'm not sure it's easier than gaining floating voters. If you've voted X all your life and then decidde to switch, it's quite a big deal and you buy into it personally. Switching back feels difficult. Labour needs to get most votes nationally. Whether the route to that is over the Red Wall I'm less sure.
Come on Nick, the Red Wall IS the Labour Party.
If we don't appeal to working class communities across the country then we might as well pack up and go home.
Some might feel more comfortable hand wringing with the north London dinner party set, but we won't form a government by fixating on the pet causes of those who can stroll through life with nothing more to worry about than whether Waitrose will have a supply of Good Brie.
Might "WAS the Labour Party" be better there?
The point was made a few days ago that places like Mansfield have very high home ownership.
How sticky will these new "working class Tories" be?
Yes, there's two separate points. First, many Red Wall seats like Mansfield and Hartlepool are no longer as traditionally working-class as people think. Lots of people of different backgrounds and attitudes have moved to them and bought houses simply because houses are cheaper. Second, if we define Labour=working class, we lose. That's not to say (and I didn't say) that we shouldn't care about the working-class communities (if we ceased to do so, there would be little point in belonging), just that the strategy needs to have broad appeal.
Part of the issue is turnout, too. There's a very marked difference in turnout within every seat between the poorest and richest areas (and nearly every seat has some of each), and if you have just one day to campaign, you'll find you get much more interest as a Labour candidate in a middle-income area than a very poor one. You care about the very poor area because you're a Labour candidate, not because you think that's where most of your voters will come from.
Interesting that “you care about the poor area because you are a Labour candidate”
NOT
“You are a Labour candidate because you care about the poor area”
More than half of people in the UK have had a Covid-19 vaccine, according to official stats.
At least 517,914 new doses added to the total yesterday - only 🏴 & NI have reported so far, 🏴 no longer reports on Saturdays and 🏴 is mysteriously late.”
This is about as clear as a report to the Scottish Parliament after Crown Office have finished with it. I am guessing that the first flag is England given the numbers but I am not sure about the other two.
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colliding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
C'mon. That's ludicrous. You are disappearing down the transphobe wormhole. It's a bad place, Max, a bad place. Please stay right where you are until I can get to you and drop a rope ladder. And talk to no-one until you see it coming and my kind smiley face peering down.
I think this goes hand in hand with the corruption stories. No one responsible will suffer much, indeed the chief executive Paula Vennells got a CBE and a job in the cabinet office!
People in power can do as they please, break rules and not suffer consequences.
Lol @ Vennells’s CBE for “services to the post office and charity”
These people are sophisticated crooks and deserve jail time.
I began to listen to the post office podcast yesterday. Amazing.
More amazing was that c&#t Vince Cable on PM yesterday denying any responsibility for this which happened on his watch.
Him thinking the ‘no one brought it to my attention’ was a good line to pursue was plain weird.
That seems to be the story here, summed up quite well in one line.
Everyone blamed everyone else, throughout. Nobody is responsible.
I suspect that a large number of the 20.000 sub-post office managers quietly made up for the errors out of their own pocket. They deserve to be repaid as well.
Presumably the money that went missing went somewhere else. It would be useful to know where before coughing up as a taxpayer.
It didn’t actually go missing - it was a computer error.
Perhaps we get so much of this sort of thing because there hasn't been a proper war here for so long - there are blokes out there with an urge to show their heroism, their enormous pluck under fire, but with no outlet for it.
What's a "proper" war? The UK bombed Iraq last week.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colliding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
C'mon. That's ludicrous. You are disappearing down the transphobe wormhole. It's a bad place, Max, a bad place. Please stay right where you are until I can get to you and drop a rope ladder. And talk to no-one until you see it coming and my kind smiley face peering down.
You should put a bit of lippy on that kind smiley face just for teh bantz.
893 000 new cases recorded world wide. A new record. Somewhat sobering that we are at the height of the pandemic. And absolutely no sign that this is the peak.
While I'm here, as ever those of us aligned to Labour are grateful for the advice from Casino and other PB Tories about why Labour is unelectable and what it should do about it. The advice seems to be as follows:
1. Labour holds the white w/c, especially in the north and midlands, in contempt and doesn't share their values. To have any chance of winning back these voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the total), Labour needs to dump their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap and go back to a good, honest patriotic party that aligns with the values of the white w/c.
2. The metropolitan, woke, right-on middle class don't share the values of the northern, midland white w/c. Labour should stop trying to appeal to such metropolitan voters (let's imagine they comprise 25% of the electorate) by telling them to stick their woke, social justice, BLM, green vegetarian crap up their backsides so that we can win the votes of the 25% under 1.
I'm not persuaded that this is a winning strategy for Labour, however, Somehow, I think they need to keep the voters in 2. and peel off some of the voters in 1., not all of whom fit the stereotype I've outlined in 1.
Yep, agreed. It's keep the new base and win back some of the old. The opposite, win back the old base and keep some of the new is not a goer. There comes a point where if core values are genuinely disconnected then such is life. The WWC Leave demographic, like you say, are not all driven mainly by nationalism and 'trad' social conservative values, rather than hard-headed economic concerns, and therein lies the target. Win back those guys and gals. This, plus expanding the new base, plus a chunk of floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of the Boris Johnson show, can deliver' Labour biggest party' at the next GE.
The thing is that some of your "new base" values, like hatred of your fellow citizens, hatred of your own country and despising your own flag, are anathema to most of the nation.
There are certain extreme values that are beyond the pale. Once you get into the realms of hate you're typically there.
The Labour Party, like the BNP and other parties built on hatred don't deserve a majority. Let go of the hate and you may have a chance.
Don't be so silly. Nobody has said that "the flag" should be despised or that everyone who likes to display it is a bad news bear. All I did was try to tempt you to do a little digging into the links between Eng Nat as a political creed and the far right. You refused and chose 'ignorance is bliss'. Your call. But the price of that ignorance is it renders any comments from you on this subject as chaff.
On 'flags' btw, quick tale from yesterday. I went to play golf at a club in South London and when I got there I found it festooned to the rafters with the St George. You literally couldn't move for flags. "Gosh," I thought, as I pulled in. "This looks a little OTT. What's the deal here?"
Then I realized. St George's Day! Patron Saint of England. George and the dragon and all that. WTF not get those flags out. Bet you got yours out, Philip, didn't you? Good on yer, if so. It doesn't prove you're a far right racist little englander.
Same applies to all those people who chose not to get theirs out. Or even those who don't possess one. You don't have to prove your patriotism with a flag. People who insist you have to prove your patriotism with a flag ARE bad news bears. I think that's one thing that all of sound mind and good character, regardless of their politics, can agree on.
There is nothing to link Eng Nat and the far right beyond your own bigotry. It is like linking Muslims with terrorists. If you want to give some unbigotted evidence that all Eng Nats are far right then you're just talking chaff. That in your eyes would even think of linking the national flag with the far right is as bigotted and hate-filled as someone who sees a hijab and thinks "terrorist".
And as for saying "nobody" on this very thread Roger said he wants Labour to lose Hartlepool because of how much he hates the locals there. As far as I can see nobody on your side of politics here has disowned or disassociated themselves from those comments. Funny that.
(i) There are links between the Eng Nat creed and the far right. (ii) All Eng Nats are far right.
If you can't distinguish between these 2 statements (one of which is true and one of which isn't) a development of any value here is not possible. Which is ok because it would be boring anyway and Saturday mornings need a bit of fizz.
So let's go back to what I asked you. A very straightforward question about yesterday, St George's day and flags.
Did you get yours out?
(i) Is irrelevant gaslighting. (ii) Is bullshit.
So which did you mean? Were you trying to gaslight, falsely associating perfectly normal behaviour with extremists, or were you bullshitting?
As for my flag, I changed my avatar. Which I intend to keep because I think the new one is pretty cool. What do you think?
You can't comment on (i) having chosen not to look into it. Sorry.
Yes, the new avatar suits you. I think you should keep it.
But it's not a proper flesh & blood flag. So given you did not get one out - even on such a special day - are we to conclude that you do not possess a flag of St George?
There is nothing to look into in (i)
If you have some evidence for (i) feel free to present it, otherwise I'll treat it with the same contempt I'd treat any other bigot.
The dodging of the question is telling me that you - you of all people! - do NOT possess a flag of St George.
Well well.
I don't possess a flagpole.
I've flown the flag in the past. Not this year, there's no judgement on people who do or don't - its merely those that condemn those that do that are silly.
PS sorry Gallowgate but SALAH! ⚽
You have a flag but no pole?
Oh dear. When did that happen?
In the same position. I was awarded a US flag for something I did (forget what or by whom). It is nicely folded in a triangle, in a box somewhere.
Sounds like it's staying there then, Tim. No pole, no fly.
But Philip used to have a pole and now doesn't. This is what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
The rope on my flagpole broke a couple of years ago, and I haven’t got around to fixing it yet. I really should as I liked having a flagpole as I’ve been interested in the history of flags from a young age. I used to fly the stars and stripes most days, and England, Ireland and Wales on their respective saints days and the flag of Europe on Europe Day. Our next door neighbour is Portuguese and he flies the American, Portuguese and European flags from a triple flagpole he made (he’s a metalworker by trade).
I love flags too. Some have great designs. The Japanese one, for example, is one of my favourites. I once looked into getting that on a sofa but didn't go ahead with it. Felt it might have been a bit too much "hey look at my sofa".
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Perhaps we get so much of this sort of thing because there hasn't been a proper war here for so long - there are blokes out there with an urge to show their heroism, their enormous pluck under fire, but with no outlet for it.
What's a "proper" war? The UK bombed Iraq last week.
Yes but I mean one where WE are UNDER ATTACK. Like we are by the WOKE MOB. Sorry about the Caps but it's just that sort of thing.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
It's interesting to see a former top sportsman (Jason Gillespie) from one sport (cricket), implicitly call for another sport (boxing) to be banned, because of concussions.
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
Mr. kinabalu, well, sport's segregated on sex for a reason. One's personal feeling of gender doesn't rewrite one's genetic code. It's fundamentally unfair to women to have biological men competing against them (in almost every sport).
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
Ok, I will score that one out.
Edit, does this cover Tennant's lager or not?
SNP doesn’t support taking the piss?
Oh my!
On the contrary Charles @Theuniondivvie assures me that in an independent Scotland piss will be freely available to all.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
It seems to me that one you have - after appropriate consultation and advice - taken positive steps along the transition pathway (ie medical intervention) then it becomes more of a discussion of whether you get access to biologically based rights
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
Ok, I will score that one out.
Edit, does this cover Tennant's lager or not?
SNP doesn’t support taking the piss?
Oh my!
On the contrary Charles @Theuniondivvie assures me that in an independent Scotland piss will be freely available to all.
At the moment they provide piss and vinegar so that must be a SNP CUT!
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
Perhaps they can improve their skills and education and stand up to their family pressures, whatever they may be?
Also many workers in the gig economy value the flexibility of those jobs. Pricing them out of the labour market by including all kinds of "benefits" will result in higher unemployment over time.
I think Taiwan would actually be quite a tough nut to crack.
They have powerful modern armed forces, much of the hardware, supplied by the yanks. The coastline on the western side is mostly unsuitable for landing. There are well dug in defensive lines. Weather conditions mean that only April and October are suitable for an invasion.
You have to ask why China has not tried to invade Taiwan before.
If this is going to be mandatory in an independent Scotland I make that *consults notes* reason 642 to vote no.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
I think I can speak on behalf of the whole independence movement in saying that you will be able to drink whoever's piss you like in an indy Scotland, or indeed no piss at all.
Ok, I will score that one out.
Edit, does this cover Tennant's lager or not?
SNP doesn’t support taking the piss?
Oh my!
On the contrary Charles @Theuniondivvie assures me that in an independent Scotland piss will be freely available to all.
At the moment they provide piss and vinegar so that must be a SNP CUT!
I would have said that their drink of choice is whine myself.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
This is everything that is wrong about the tribalism of british politics. Surely the important thing is the policy gets implemented not who implements it.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
Perhaps they can improve their skills and education and stand up to their family pressures, whatever they may be?
Also many workers in the gig economy value the flexibility of those jobs. Pricing them out of the labour market by including all kinds of "benefits" will result in higher unemployment over time.
People argued that in respect of the NMW. Hell, I argued that at the time. I was wrong.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
No one cares about woman to man because it doesn’t cause any problems for anyone else.
Man to woman, however, is a problem. That’s why it gets the attention.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
You're using buzz words like "defender of female sexual rights". What does that actually mean?
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
Female only spaces and no to self-ID are her main issues. I go further and say no to puberty blockers and pushing children into making decisions that they don't have the mental capacity to handle.
Just because your wife, who is the same age as me it seems, opposes such things, doesn't mean everyone does. I'm talking about people in their late teens and early 20s who it seems are overwhelmingly accepting of self-ID and people's rights to be whoever they want to be.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
I thinks self-ID needs to have a level of reality and evidence about it. To say any of us could self-declare as anything anytime would obviously be absurd. It has real-world effects because if we accept that black is white just because someone says so then it automatically dilutes the existing evidence-based definitions, which can affect everyone's identity. We live in a society that needs rules to accommodate all its various individuals, and assess how they are bound together and affect one another.
I recognise in the past some gender fluid or trans-sexual people were heavily discriminated against and mocked - and that wasn't right. Our society should try and accommodate everyone. But we need to be careful not to go too far the other way into a world of pure narcissism and put some sensible boundaries on the rules for that otherwise it becomes farcical at best (and thus disrespected or ignored) or leads to stripping away others' social identity and rights, together with irrevocable surgical change for the temporarily confused, at worst.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
Good call.
So, anyway, what did happen to your pole? Is there a story there?
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
Good call.
So, anyway, what did happen to your pole? Is there a story there?
No.
Which is why I didn't respond to your first five enquiries.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
How exactly are they "trapped" in such employment? Surely they can leave it if it's so terrible?
They are trapped by poor skills, poor education, all too often familial or social pressures and the lack of good quality jobs both outside and inside the public sector. Some will escape. Many won't.
Perhaps they can improve their skills and education and stand up to their family pressures, whatever they may be?
Also many workers in the gig economy value the flexibility of those jobs. Pricing them out of the labour market by including all kinds of "benefits" will result in higher unemployment over time.
People argued that in respect of the NMW. Hell, I argued that at the time. I was wrong.
I think you were right on the minimum wage, as it happens. On the gig economy I think there is little doubt that increasing the price of labour by including lots of benefits will reduce the demand for it, especially at that point in the labour market (the low-skilled segment) where price is the most important component.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
This is everything that is wrong about the tribalism of british politics. Surely the important thing is the policy gets implemented not who implements it.
But we don't want a chancer like Boris Johnson as PM for an eternity. I think that's a valid concern.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
It seems to me that one you have - after appropriate consultation and advice - taken positive steps along the transition pathway (ie medical intervention) then it becomes more of a discussion of whether you get access to biologically based rights
That's what happens now and what the government has reaffirmed by dumping all of the bullshit from the May era reforms. What the agitators want is to break the link between biological sex and sex based rights, which, again, circling back to my original point on Labour struggling to get back into power, is an impossible policy to sell to voters.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
The ‘10’ gives a false impression of accuracy from what is a fairly broad brush modelling estimate. Nevetheless from the map it is good to see that many of last week’s hotspots have diminished and some disappeared altogether.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Every person will have different "traditions" that they value.
I value the tradition that we don't flag wave like Americans because we're comfortable in our national identity but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
I value the tradition that we are a United Kingdom but @Philip_Thompson doesn't seem to value that tradition.
However I also value the tradition that, on the whole, we treat separatists with decorum and let nations and territories become independent nations @HYUFD doesn't seem to value that tradition.
This whole "traditions" vs "woke" argument means something different to everyone.
Casino and others are traditionalists.
I'm quite openly not a traditionalist.
Im also quite "woke" on many issues. So don't put me down on the traditionalist side of the debate, I'm not.
You're on the "traditionalist" side of the debate if the Conservative Party is the "traditionalist" party, which is the point @MaxPB was making.
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
The argument isn't settled at all though. I have gay friends who are all looking ominously at the LGB alliance as a safe haven from all of this stuff. My wife who is almost 5 years younger than me and in her late 20s is a staunch defender of female sexual rights, all of her friends are too.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
See this is where issues get difficult. I support transgendered people's right to be who they are. I also support women's rights to have protected spaces.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
The rights aren't colluding, Philip. Female only spaces and hard won female based sex rights are being diluted for men in dresses that make no attempt to actually transition.
With all due respect @MaxPB, you are showing your ignorance and bigotism with comments like "men in dresses".
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
Whatever, if you can't stand the heat.
You’re really doing yourself a disservice here.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is two fold.
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two. 2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
From the tone of your posts I am surprised at 1, that didnt come across at all from your earlier posts. On 2, I don't use twitter or read tabloids, so the only time I ever hear anything about this issue is on here. I just struggle to believe it is a real world problem rather than a twitter problem.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
Yeah, agreed. Labour need to be in "biding your time" mode, while identifying key policy differences.
Need a new shadow cabinet first. Need some flagship policies.
I've said it on here before but the screamingly obvious one is those on ZHCs and casual labour/ so called self employed. It is a fairly incredible state of affairs when the Supreme Court seems to be more concerned with the rights of these exploited people (as in the Uber case) than the leader of the Labour Party.
What's the policy though?
A worker's charter:
Guaranteed minimum hours in every contract of employment. A right to get paid if given less than 7 days notice of the removal of hours. Sick pay and holiday pay for the "self employed". Security of employment after a specified period. The right to payment for "waiting time". Legal obligations to make sure all self employed earning less than, say, £25k a year are covered by your employers liability insurance. A right to be fully refunded for the cost of using your own vehicle.
No doubt many more. That is just off the top of my head but there are millions of our fellow citizens trapped in exploitative employment with no security, no ability to get mortgages or loans, bearing the risks of downturns of trade which should be on the trader and vulnerable to sickness and injury. It is totally morally unacceptable and if that means an extra 50p on our carry outs or 20p on our cappuccinos it is a price we should all bear as being part of a civilised society.
Thing is, if labour did push such policies, the tories would probably nick them.
This is everything that is wrong about the tribalism of british politics. Surely the important thing is the policy gets implemented not who implements it.
But we don't want a chancer like Boris Johnson as PM for an eternity. I think that's a valid concern.
Ah so a policy you think is desperately needed, should be delayed for up to 3 years, perhaps more for electoral advantage? Gotcha.....and the left claim to care about the poor. Evidence seems to say otherwise on this one
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
I agree.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
It seems to me that one you have - after appropriate consultation and advice - taken positive steps along the transition pathway (ie medical intervention) then it becomes more of a discussion of whether you get access to biologically based rights
That's what happens now and what the government has reaffirmed by dumping all of the bullshit from the May era reforms. What the agitators want is to break the link between biological sex and sex based rights, which, again, circling back to my original point on Labour struggling to get back into power, is an impossible policy to sell to voters.
The Conservatives went along with it for far too long. It think Cameron-May basically followed a centre-left social policy for 7-8 years too long after it had overreached in the name of "modernisation".
It's why one of my principles is that you must test every sides of the debate on every issue - particularly the controversial ones or where there's a very strong or fashionable consensus. You must always put up a proposition and an opposition in a free society.
I think Taiwan would actually be quite a tough nut to crack.
They have powerful modern armed forces, much of the hardware, supplied by the yanks. The coastline on the western side is mostly unsuitable for landing. There are well dug in defensive lines. Weather conditions mean that only April and October are suitable for an invasion.
You have to ask why China has not tried to invade Taiwan before.
One of the aspects of the Hong Kong situation that can be hard for outsiders to understand is that there are many in Hong Kong who support Beijing. Are there many people in Taiwan who would do the same?
A political crisis in Taiwan, with a significant fraction of the island supporting Beijing over independence, could provide the circumstances that would allow a successful invasion. But perhaps support for Beijing in Taiwan is low.
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
The thing is you have to see the other side, which I'm not sure you do.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
I hesitate to get involved in trans debates... lots of fire and fury
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Good post.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
AIUI, the ratio of M to F transitioning cf F to M is approx 2:1.
Your figures are out of date;
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Tiresome discussion. Labour will win again when it has fully detoxified from the Corbyn years, Boris has finally shot his load, and Labour has a telegenic female leader a la Rosena.
I want to agree with this, however, I'm not convinced that Labour have it within them to beat the Tories in England again like Blair could. The issue is that Labour members aren't anti flag, they're anti the people who like to wave flags. They hate the people, not the flag. Until this changes Labour won't win in England.
That plus all the other cultural stuff will keep anyone who values tradition voting for the blue team. Until people can trust Labour not to sell out the nation's values to Islington's chattering classes it's going to be very, very difficult for them to get a look in.
@Casino_Royale has been saying this for a few months and unfortunately no one in Labour is listening to him and everyone else who can see it.
It starts with repudiation of mermaids and other militant transgender "charities", celebrating our history rather than be embarrassed by it or as I hear Labour people tell me all the time "we should teach children the truth about the empire" and it needs to embrace the fact that conservative values which place importance on families, education and tradition are important to this nation. I grew up in an immigrant, working class family, we should be prime Labour territory, except we're not. Labour's values are out of alignment and I fear that Labour members see me as the enemy because I value tradition.
Thanks. I think they assume I have an agenda or want to throw them off the scent.
I think I've said before that, whilst I'm not a supporter, I respect (most of) the British centre-left as part of our political heritage and landscape and think it's important they play a competitive part in our democracy so we all have a safe, secure and stable society overall.
I'm not trying to trick them into a 1,000 year Tory Reich.
I have no issue with voting Labour in theory. I couldn't vote for Starmer's Labour party. He represents the worst aspects of it, wokery, anti-tradition, will sell out brexit, I simply don't trust him to defend traditional British values against the onslaught of thought police supporting lefties. He simply won't defend free speech from those who want us to stop talking about and thinking about "wrong" things such as women being actually female and not men who declare themselves to be women etc...
Well this is it. I could vote for Labour, if it had identical policies and ideas as the Tories...
Comments
The fact is that for a majority of young people, things like transgenderism is just not an issue. Older people can argue about things like bathrooms and "family values", and I sympathise, but the genie isn't going back in the bottle. These new social norms are going to filter up through the ages as time goes on. This is just like attitudes against homosexuality and race.
I support the Tories despite their traditionalism, not because of it.
If you want to consider traditionalism you need to look at other people, not me.
It won't simple "filter up" instead all of you lot that propose it will continually lose elections and then bitch about how British people are all bigots on Twitter.
What clinched it for the Conservatives in 1959, was choosing Commander John Kerans, who commanded HMS Amethyst.
Labour is always going to be more “woke” than the Tories. It’s a left wing party, everyone knows that. Blair was “woke”, look at some of the things he did.
It’s a distraction and not going to make a difference between Labour losing or not losing. Labour lost in 2019 because Labour (we) put up a historically unpopular leader offering historically unpopular policies and offering to cancel a vote which the voters voted for.
Labour was very “woke” in 2017 and got 40% of the vote - I know it lost.
Labour was very “woke” in 2015 and 2010 and held the Red Wall in both elections.
Labour has to put forward a programme of polices and ideas that appeal to the average voter and prove it can offer something for the 2020s, in a way that won’t ruin the country.
Blair was right when he said we shouldn’t even get into these silly culture wars. They’re irrelevant.
You see no issue in describing a "man who has declared themselves to be a woman" as a man and thus are offended that some people would try and interfere with your free speech, I assume?
However if you see no problem in someone born biologically male declaring themselves female, your objection to that choice is seen as an equally hateful interference with someone's liberty to be themselves.
I'm not having a go at you here, I'm just trying to express the other side of the debate.
There's times when rights collide. No different to the right of people to pick their own religion, and the religions who decide to attack gay rights.
When issues collide you need to stop and think and tread carefully - not go steaming in with a two footed challenge calling everyone who has a different priority to you a bigot.
Your last sentence isn't helpful. I'm trying to have a constructive and rational debate here, not a political mudslinging match.
It’s a lovely day out there, great for a run. Now I’m off back out.
But it was @MaxPB who brought up Mermaids and the like.
But to elaborate. The notion that the WWC Leavers who went Tory and delivered the Wall and the landslide n Dec 19 are all driven by a mix of Brexit-fueled nationalism and socially conservative woke hatred is just a stereotype. Many are, no question, but many are not. Lots of them will place hard-headed economic concerns at the top of their agenda. They don't need Labour to ape Tory values in order to take another look at the party. They need an offering in their clear material interests from a Labour party that looks ready for government. These men and women are Labour's target. Win those votes back and therefore some seats back up there in the north and midlands. Plus keep the new base. Plus win a chunk of general floating voters looking for integrity and competence after 5 years of Boris Johnson. That's the strategy. Goal - Labour largest party in a hung parliament after the next GE. I think it has a good chance of working but not as good a chance as the market thinks. It's trading at 2.6 right now. For me it should be around 3.5.
That's separate from the debate about bathrooms and trans children and what not.
Being opposed to trans people is not culture. It isn't British culture to oppose trans people.
It isn't true, but is regularly asserted as fact.
Isn't half the cleavage age is.
It's not sensible to mix discussions about "female-only spaces" and "self-ID" with things about puberty blockers for children. They are two very separate issues.
That isn't helpful and it's frankly insulting.
This isn't culture – it's being a bigot. You can be in support of safe spaces for women and be against puberty blockers for children without being a bigot.
In fact I might even put it higher up the list.
But we bang on about the bedroom tax.
"The woke mob can do their damndest but I will not be moved. I will continue to use only one sheet of bog roll to wipe my arse."
It fills a need, is what I'm saying.
Unless their metropolitan voters prefer cheaper services and don’t mind exploiting the workers?
More than half of people in the UK have had a Covid-19 vaccine, according to official stats.
At least 517,914 new doses added to the total yesterday - only 🏴 & NI have reported so far, 🏴 no longer reports on Saturdays and 🏴 is mysteriously late.”
NOT
“You are a Labour candidate because you care about the poor area”
I think that’s rather revealing
If we don't take the chances I can see Newcastle grabbing an equaliser in the 89th minute.
Edit, does this cover Tennant's lager or not?
Somewhat sobering that we are at the height of the pandemic. And absolutely no sign that this is the peak.
If you think it’s justified to demean transgender people by describing them as “men in dresses” well... 🤦♂️
The issue is one of conflicting rights. At what point does someone who was biologically born a male become a female from the perspective of the law?
The “woke” side of the argument says “whenever they want”. The “bigoted” side says “never”. The answer is somewhere in between.
The issue is that some of those rights - refuges, etc - have real impact on other people. Fundamentally the “woke” extremists are putting their interests above everyone else in society and trying to scream down disagreement
Like we are by the WOKE MOB.
Sorry about the Caps but it's just that sort of thing.
Fundamentally I think this is an issue that should be left for the medical community to diagnose and discuss - and I don't particularly want to get involved either way.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dizzy259/status/1385946481257967618
Part of the context here is obviously the death of fellow Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes, after being hit by a cricket ball.
Oh my!
1. There are transgender people who undertake the medical process of transitioning to the other sex. I have nothing but respect, sympathy and more respect for them. It must be one of the most difficult decisions and processes to undergo and my "men in dresses" comment is absolutely not aimed at anyone in this category. Post-opererative transgender people are the sex they have transitioned to and should have access to all the same things as people who are born that sex and the law should (mostly) make no distinction between the two.
2. The flip side of that is the "man in a dress" who says he's a woman, and this is where I'm firmly off the train, the same people who support this rubbish are the same people pushing puberty blockers to kids and sending them to the Tavistock centre to be brainwashed.
Circling back to the original point, Labour are squarely in the second camp.
Small point, but AIUI, currently most of the teenagers seeking help were born female.
A big change from just a few years ago.
One of the interesting aspects of the debate is how many commentators are very focussed on one gender and mostly ignore the other. I’m not sure I have a point to make about it, I just find it interesting.
Also many workers in the gig economy value the flexibility of those jobs. Pricing them out of the labour market by including all kinds of "benefits" will result in higher unemployment over time.
They have powerful modern armed forces, much of the hardware, supplied by the yanks. The coastline on the western side is mostly unsuitable for landing. There are well dug in defensive lines. Weather conditions mean that only April and October are suitable for an invasion.
You have to ask why China has not tried to invade Taiwan before.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/25/taiwan-can-win-a-war-with-china/
Man to woman, however, is a problem. That’s why it gets the attention.
https://news.sky.com/story/maya-forstater-woman-who-lost-job-over-transgender-views-warns-of-scary-precedent-if-her-tribunal-appeal-fails-12285218
I recognise in the past some gender fluid or trans-sexual people were heavily discriminated against and mocked - and that wasn't right. Our society should try and accommodate everyone. But we need to be careful not to go too far the other way into a world of pure narcissism and put some sensible boundaries on the rules for that otherwise it becomes farcical at best (and thus disrespected or ignored) or leads to stripping away others' social identity and rights, together with irrevocable surgical change for the temporarily confused, at worst.
So, anyway, what did happen to your pole? Is there a story there?
Which is why I didn't respond to your first five enquiries.
WTF? All views are worthy of respect.
https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
I blame the drugs.
Good news for SKS is so
It's why one of my principles is that you must test every sides of the debate on every issue - particularly the controversial ones or where there's a very strong or fashionable consensus. You must always put up a proposition and an opposition in a free society.
A political crisis in Taiwan, with a significant fraction of the island supporting Beijing over independence, could provide the circumstances that would allow a successful invasion. But perhaps support for Beijing in Taiwan is low.
Apologies, I’m tapping this out, quoting from a podcast:
“Used to be 85% male to female. In the last 15 years there’s been this exponential rise in a completely different cohort. Now it’s 85% female to male and they’re getting younger and younger”
Anecdote, but from an excellent source;
Marcus Evans is a Psychoanalyst in private practice and formerly served as Consultant Psychotherapist and Associate Clinical Director of Adult and Adolescent Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
6 minutes onwards;
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/triggernometry/id1375568988?i=1000505264146