Labour is doing well, but it could still lose the election. Here are the three big hurdles it must overcome [OPINION]

[zugzwang]

2 minutes ago, Casual-observer said:

Sexual psychology can also be hijacked. 

 

And weaponised by the billionaire press a la Corbyn's 'antisemitism'. That's the only reason the issue is being discussed. 👇

 

https://news.sky.com/story/keir-starmer-will-lose-election-campaign-on-day-one-over-his-trans-rights-position-labour-strategists-warn-12841099

Keir Starmer will lose election campaign on day one unless he shifts his trans rights position, Labour strategists warn

The Labour leader has recently changed his position after he said Scotland should not have made changes to its transgender laws, but two years ago he said Labour would introduce self-declaration for trans people.

Sir Keir Starmer will lose the general election campaign "on day one" unless he shifts his position on transgender rights, party strategists have warned.

Advisers have been telling the Labour leader since late 2021 to "deal with" the issue and explain to voters that "self-ID is not going to happen".

Sir Keir's position has evolved in recent days. At an event in Stoke-on-Trent on Thursday, he said: "I think that if we reflect on what's happened in Scotland, the lesson I take from that is that if you're going to make reforms, you have to carry the public with you.

"And I think that's a very important message, and I think that's why it's clear that in Scotland there should be a reset of the situation."

This contrasts with a commitment two years ago to introduce "self-declaration for trans people".

[quine]

Sex is immutable.  Women's rights have gone back 100 years with this shit that's going on just now.  No one really believes that anyone can change sex. Adam Graham can call himself Isla Bryson, wear whatever he wants, put on his lipstick, tilt his head, but he will never be a woman, with or without his baby carrot protuding through his pink leggings. 

 

@Casual-observer - I don't think anyone is wishing to "define transgender out of existence".  Portray yourself how you like, just keep men, out of women's single sex spaces, including refuges, hospital wards, toilets.  I have an interest in this having come across a man in a women's toilet.  I was on my own and a big burly man (presenting as a man) came in.  I told him he was in the women's toilets as I thought he'd walked in by mistake.  He told me he was a woman.  This is what we are up against.  I got out safely. 

[winkie]

The Tories are desperate to stay in power, they will say almost anything, they say they will sort what they think the public are concerned with  ..... All talk, not even nice talk, nasty talk and no trousers.....hot air and suspect statistics to fit their narrative....not how they say it.....will say anything, talk is cheap. 

Time for change.....they have had enough time to do effectively nothing.

[Big Orange]

18 minutes ago, quine said:

@Casual-observer - I don't think anyone is wishing to "define transgender out of existence".  Portray yourself how you like, just keep men, out of women's single sex spaces, including refuges, hospital wards, toilets.  I have an interest in this having come across a man in a women's toilet.  I was on my own and a big burly man (presenting as a man) came in.  I told him he was in the women's toilets as I thought he'd walked in by mistake.  He told me he was a woman.  This is what we are up against.  I got out safely. 

True MtF trans women are often quite different to regular males to start with in childhood long before transitioning, I think what we have here are perverts and the deluded hijacking the genuine social movement. 

[Cocha]

1 minute ago, winkie said:

The Tories are desperate to stay in power, they will say almost anything, they say they will sort what they think the public are concerned with  ..... All talk, not even nice talk, nasty talk and no trousers.....hot air and suspect statistics to fit their narrative....not how they say it.....will say anything, talk is cheap. 

Time for change.....they have had enough time to do effectively nothing.

Are you seriously this one eyed? 

The irony being, by time for a change I assume you mean labour???

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, Cocha said:

Are you seriously this one eyed? 

The irony being, by time for a change I assume you mean labour???

If that's the only alternative, then yes.

[jammin35]

4 minutes ago, Big Orange said:

True MtF trans women are often quite different to regular males to start with in childhood long before transitioning, I think what we have here are perverts and the deluded hijacking the genuine social movement. 

I think you are right. I went to a small school (150 pupils) where that was a young lad who was clearly different. It came as no surprise when he transitioned in his 40s.

My worry with the current nonsense is that children are being exposed to live changing ideologies. For example, it’s well known that teenagers often go through a phase of thinking that they might be gay, but subsequently decide that they are not. It’s a hormonal thing and well known to doctors and psychologists. But rather than making space for this experimentation/mental evaluation, we are being urged to treat this as a permanent decision and pushing the idea that “you might be born on the wrong body”. The psychological implications of that are terrifying.

[zugzwang]

21 minutes ago, quine said:

Sex is immutable.  Women's rights have gone back 100 years with this shit that's going on just now.  No one really believes that anyone can change sex. Adam Graham can call himself Isla Bryson, wear whatever he wants, put on his lipstick, tilt his head, but he will never be a woman, with or without his baby carrot protuding through his pink leggings. 

False. The law as it is presently constituted says that Isla Bryson has the legal right to call herself a woman providing she passes a series of psychological examinations. The 2010 Equality Act is clear that ‘sex’ and ‘gender reassignment’ are two separate characteristics, neither of which can be used to discriminate against a person. Gender reassignment is legal in places like Iran and Singapore, not otherwise known as hotbeds of cultural liberalism.

[jammin35]

1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

Why do you keep calling her Byson if you think she's a man? The name she used before was Adam Graham.

Sexual psychology is complex. We can either define transgender individuals out of existence or seek to accommodate their lived experience within the law. I prefer that latter. It's more grown up.

 

Anything that requires the use of the phrase “lived experience” should be considered highly suspect. 

[Cocha]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

If that's the only alternative, then yes.

It isn't the only alternative. It's amazing how many long termers of this forum who claim they want cheaper housing keep voting for more and more expensive housing. 

[winkie]

12 minutes ago, Cocha said:

Are you seriously this one eyed? 

The irony being, by time for a change I assume you mean labour???

Not where I live......no chance, the best thing would be another coalition, a more rounded approach to better match the views of the voting population.......imo.

[zugzwang]

1 minute ago, jammin35 said:

Anything that requires the use of the phrase “lived experience” should be considered highly suspect. 

Why? What would you prefer to call it?

[Cocha]

Just now, winkie said:

Not where I live......no chance, the best thing would be another coalition, a more rounded approach to better match the views of the voting population.......imo.

I agree with that. I think coalitions are the only way forward now. But too many dumbasses who have spent nearly 2 decades bawling over high house prices will keep voting for even higher house prices.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Cocha said:

It isn't the only alternative. It's amazing how many long termers of this forum who claim they want cheaper housing keep voting for more and more expensive housing. 

First things first, Sunak must go and not be replaced with yet another member of the BJ cabinet. If that means Starmer then so be it.

[winkie]

Just now, Cocha said:

I agree with that. I think coalitions are the only way forward now. But too many dumbasses who have spent nearly 2 decades bawling over high house prices will keep voting for even higher house prices.

Tell them to get their voting ID now.....or have no vote or say.

[Casual-observer]

41 minutes ago, quine said:

@Casual-observer - I don't think anyone is wishing to "define transgender out of existence".  Portray yourself how you like, just keep men, out of women's single sex spaces, including refuges, hospital wards, toilets.  I have an interest in this having come across a man in a women's toilet.  I was on my own and a big burly man (presenting as a man) came in.  I told him he was in the women's toilets as I thought he'd walked in by mistake.  He told me he was a woman.  This is what we are up against.  I got out safely. 

I didn't say this? 

[zugzwang]

2 minutes ago, Cocha said:

It isn't the only alternative. It's amazing how many long termers of this forum who claim they want cheaper housing keep voting for more and more expensive housing. 

You were given an opportunity to vote for cheaper housing. No-one took it except me.

Who should we vote for today?

 

[Cocha]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

First things first, Sunak must go and not be replaced with yet another member of the BJ cabinet. If that means Starmer then so be it.

There are other options than voting for the Westminster Party. Why on earth would you spend this long on a house price crash forum but keep voting for higher house prices?

[Bob8]

There is an obsession with transgenderism for a large section of the right as quine shows. 

I read the right wing newspapers when in the UK and the sections devoted to transgenderism are very large and seemingly out of proportion to most peoples' lives. I think there are many on the left unaware about how much many on the right are pre-occupied with this.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Cocha said:

There are other options than voting for the Westminster Party. Why on earth would you spend this long on a house price crash forum but keep voting for higher house prices?

Because, at the moment, my number one priority is to get rid of this stinking "Tory" government.

So many "Tory" troops.

[Cocha]

4 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Because, at the moment, my number one priority is to get rid of this stinking "Tory" government.

So many "Tory" troops.

Well while you continue to vote for the Westminster Party there is no point you whining about high house prices on here.

[msi]

1 minute ago, Cocha said:

Well while you continue to vote for the Westminster Party there is no point you whining about high house prices on here.

Tory play #355..... strange that

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, Cocha said:

Well while you continue to vote for the Westminster Party there is no point you whining about high house prices on here.

[jammin35]

16 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I will be generous and assume you are genuinely thick.

That assumes that someone who has assets of a million and does not work contributes more to society than a research scienist in pharmaceuticals earning about 30K.

In reality, you contribute when you work, which you do not for the first chunk of your life, you are invested in. Then you produce (paid or upaid), then you are lucky enough to rest.

It is you that clearly does not understand.

We can ignore your research scientist. He is a rarity. He does not reflect the contents of most inner city areas, or provincial seaside towns. He probably did not arrive in Dover on a boat. And even if he did, it would be possible to construct an immigration policy that allows him to do so legally.

I‘m surprised you are not able to see this.

As for “producing” (paid or unpaid) it is not the “production” that pays for the welfare state. It is the taxes on that production. Hence, if per capita production drops (as it has been since 2007) tax revenues drop. If you then add more people you are creating a bigger problem.

It isn’t hard, genius.

Why has productivity dropped since 2007, year on year, without exception, and despite increasing amounts of automation making production easier? That’s what needs the focus? Too many people not producing? Producing the wrong things? I don’t know. But somebody needs to find out and fix it.

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by jammin35

[Cocha]

1 minute ago, msi said:

Tory play #355..... strange that

Awww bless, you've another labour Fanboi in Brucie now to join your gang to keep voting for higher house prices.

It's the Westminster Party play #355 and as their biggest fanboi on here, you are the biggest sucker for falling for it, time and time and time again