Labour Conference

[Mr K]

At the next election Sir K, just has not to be Boris Johnson and he's won, simples

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

At the next election Sir K, just has not to be Boris Johnson and he's won, simples

Wow.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s a bit tricky in the central belt isn’t it. Where I presently live the Tories always have a fighting chance (and have previously held the constituency) so I’ve never yet been faced with the prospect of tactical voting.

I’m likely to be moving house early next year and while it is presently proper SNP bandit country it is one of the seats previously held strongly by Labour. I might just have to hold my nose and vote for them, because the Nats have thoroughly Balkanised Scottish politics now. It’s all about nationalism and identity and nothing to do with policies. So you have to either vote for the Nat, or vote for the person most likely to unseat the Nat.

Unfortunately Labour are finding out in Scotland that they can’t rely on generation after generation of lemmings to vote for them because their ancestors did.

At the last Scottish election I posed the question if any member of this forum could name a single Labour policy. While some could link to manifestos of woolly statements, nobody knew this off the top of their head.

If they want to wave the Union Flag the Tories have that covered, but it’s dismissing about half of the electorate out of hand.

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, I think it is slave labour.

Hold the bus folks. I’m agreeing with OB here.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I see Starmer thinks the next James Bond should be a woman. Funny name for a woman…James.

Anyway, even funnier as Starmer doesn’t seem to know what a woman is.

Really hard to say anything in the trans area and for someone not to take offence or disagree passionately...on either side of the debate. There's a definition of women and men born as women and men and there's a definition of those identifying as women and men. You meant one definition, Starmer the other.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m looking forward to watching “On Her Majesty’s Secret Cervix”

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Unfortunately Labour are finding out in Scotland that they can’t rely on generation after generation of lemmings to vote for them because their ancestors did.

At the last Scottish election I posed the question if any member of this forum could name a single Labour policy. While some could link to manifestos of woolly statements, nobody knew this off the top of their head.

If they want to wave the Union Flag the Tories have that covered, but it’s dismissing about half of the electorate out of hand.

Starmer actually stepped up and announced some policies this week. I think he's been trying to keep the party together with zero policies which you can only get away with for a limited time. This week, he actually found some.

Originally Posted by jfman

Hold the bus folks. I’m agreeing with OB here.

Oh dear, the end of the world must be nigh!

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

At the next election Sir K, just has not to be Boris Johnson and he's won, simples

Dream on.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Really hard to say anything in the trans area and for someone not to take offence or disagree passionately...on either side of the debate. There's a definition of women and men born as women and men and there's a definition of those identifying as women and men. You meant one definition, Starmer the other.

He said it’s not right to say only women have cervix’s ( and the idiot Lammy had waded in and said the same)

Which is incorrect, only biological females have cervix’s, Trans-women do not.

Unless he meant that Trans-men can have a cervix, which is correct as they were born as biological women, but I don’t think that’s what he meant and it certainly isn’t what Lammy meant either.

Any it’s good to see him dealing with the issues that will help him win back the red wall, the trans-debate is a hot topic on the streets of Hartlepool.

[jfman]

The trans issue is fundamentally a toxic trap. I’m not sure who set it but it leaves Labour in contortions around language to not offend a tiny minority who have decided it’s important.

Quick win for the Tories. “Men are men, women are women, biological fact. We are more interested in jobs, covid recovery, make Brexit work, etc.”

97% of the population find one of those messages far more compelling than the other.

Labour, the party of Palestine and pronouns. Those red wall seats are in the bag.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

He said it’s not right to say only women have cervix’s ( and the idiot Lammy had waded in and said the same)

Which is incorrect, only biological females have cervix’s, Trans-women do not.

Unless he meant that Trans-men can have a cervix, which is correct as they were born as biological women, but I don’t think that’s what he meant and it certainly isn’t what Lammy meant either.

Any it’s good to see him dealing with the issues that will help him win back the red wall, the trans-debate is a hot topic on the streets of Hartlepool.

Hi definition of women was for those who identify as women, yours is the more common biological definition. The Express, Sun, etc will have enjoyed the moment but the Party does seem to now be focusing on policies and not terminology which for most people doesn't get the bills paid.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The trans issue is fundamentally a toxic trap. I’m not sure who set it but it leaves Labour in contortions around language to not offend a tiny minority who have decided it’s important.

Quick win for the Tories. “Men are men, women are women, biological fact. We are more interested in jobs, covid recovery, make Brexit work, etc.”

97% of the population find one of those messages far more compelling than the other.

Good explanation.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Labour, the party of Palestine and pronouns. Those red wall seats are in the bag.

Pronouns seem to be popular everywhere now from corporates to higher education so I think it's a genuine cultural shift.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Hi definition of women was for those who identify as women, yours is the more common biological definition. The Express, Sun, etc will have enjoyed the moment but the Party does seem to now be focusing on policies and not terminology which for most people doesn't get the bills paid.

---------- Post added at 09:16 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------


Good explanation.

---------- Post added at 09:18 ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 ----------


Pronouns seem to be popular everywhere now from corporates to higher education so I think it's a genuine cultural shift.

Yeah, I’m not convinced it goes much deeper than trying not to get cancelled or have their social media accounts trashed to be honest. Don’t be fooled by the echo chamber - the Twitter feed of a chocolate manufacturer or the university of the rest of England isn’t a very good social barometer. And any organisation can hoist that ridiculous flag and tick a box on its social responsibility checklist.

A recent leaked internal survey of civil servants in Scotland revealed that the SNP had asked them all if they would be willing to specify their pronouns in their email signatures. Only 17% do, 25% might if they were asked, and 58% said they wouldn’t.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,m...ail-signatures

As Starmer rightly pointed out, anyone can chant a slogan. Plenty of people will do so under social pressure. But most people haven’t gone nearly far enough down the rabbit hole to deny that only a woman has a cervix.

[jfman]

It may well be a genuine cultural shift, it might be a fad that fizzles out when people move onto something new.

If it’s the former we just need to look at homosexuality - a cultural shift that took generations. Even still footballers, rugby players and others are reluctant to come out when statistically it’s improbable that large numbers are.

It’s not going to win or lose the 2024 election, or the 2029 one. By the time it has gained critical mass - if it does - the Tories can seamlessly move onto that ground anyway with those who most object to it either dead, dying, outnumbered and with nowhere else to go politically.

Who'd have thought having or not having a cervix would be such political hot potato?

Frankly with the amount of time I have spent having mine painfully examined you wouldn't want one.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

The trans issue is fundamentally a toxic trap. I’m not sure who set it but it leaves Labour in contortions around language to not offend a tiny minority who have decided it’s important.

Quick win for the Tories. “Men are men, women are women, biological fact. We are more interested in jobs, covid recovery, make Brexit work, etc.”

97% of the population find one of those messages far more compelling than the other.

Only 97%? Very worrying.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Only 97%? Very worrying.

Plenty of students.

---------- Post added at 10:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Yeah, I’m not convinced it goes much deeper than trying not to get cancelled or have their social media accounts trashed to be honest. Don’t be fooled by the echo chamber - the Twitter feed of a chocolate manufacturer or the university of the rest of England isn’t a very good social barometer. And any organisation can hoist that ridiculous flag and tick a box on its social responsibility checklist.

A recent leaked internal survey of civil servants in Scotland revealed that the SNP had asked them all if they would be willing to specify their pronouns in their email signatures. Only 17% do, 25% might if they were asked, and 58% said they wouldn’t.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,m...ail-signatures

As Starmer rightly pointed out, anyone can chant a slogan. Plenty of people will do so under social pressure. But most people haven’t gone nearly far enough down the rabbit hole to deny that only a woman has a cervix.

There’s a number of things at play in the wider debate however it is all being rolled into one and you’re either on their side or you aren’t. Pronouns isn’t really anything, costs nothing. I personally don’t use pronouns despite dealing with organisations who do. I have an obviously male name, I don’t see the point.

Do I want trans people to be able to go about their lives safely? Yes. Do I want people born male to compete in women’s sport? No. Trans rights shouldn’t erode women’s rights. Sex is a protected characteristic and isn’t a social construct the way gender is.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The trans issue is fundamentally a toxic trap. I’m not sure who set it but it leaves Labour in contortions around language to not offend a tiny minority who have decided it’s important.

Quick win for the Tories. “Men are men, women are women, biological fact. We are more interested in jobs, covid recovery, make Brexit work, etc.”

97% of the population find one of those messages far more compelling than the other.

We are in complete agreement on that.