Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Jacob]

Politically I don't know. I think there's something to the "you can't out-Reform Reform" but, on the other hand I think (especially with net migration running at close to 1,000,000 per year) there is a stage at which that becomes "no compromise with the electorate". I'd add that I always find Denmark an interesting comparison because they are one of the big exceptions in Europe where the centre-left vote has held up and they have some of the most hardline immigration policies in Europe. I'm not sure on that.

You can't out-Reform them, but you can steal some of their oxygen. And by that, you can get some of the less ideological voters who still see some sense in what they're saying.

If Reform is saying "too many immigrants are ruining Britain" then some people will nod along and agree. If Labour says "yeah, you're right so we reduced immigration from 200,000/ year to 40,000/ year (made up numbers), we've put these new strong "keep out undesirable immigrants out, and it's getting press stories about how cruel it is", then a number of Reform curious Labour voters may feel inclined to go. You mention Denmark, and that's been the experience there.

I think the challenge is that you have to commit to the bit, it can't be tokenistic. But if you're willing to generate human interest stories about how it hurts people and own it, then I think it can work.

Incidentally, I'm getting the vibe that Starmer's Labour may be trying to do the same on Trans issues.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's possibly slightly the challenge - and tension with Starmer.

So on trans issues the big news here has actually been a Supreme Court decision which was basically straight up statutory interpretation of the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act and how they interact. I thought the Supreme Court would go the other way, I've read their judgement and I find it quite persuasive - I think they've got the law (as it is written) right. Aside from the right or wrong of the law, I think the court basically did its job well (and it was a unanimous judgement from a five judge panel).

But I think trans issues are another really striking example of this with Starmer - I would note that throughout he has emphasised the need or respect and dignity for trans people, but he has shifted quite significantly. In 2020 and 2021 campaigning for leader and then becoming leader he states that Labour is "committed to updating the Gender Recognition Act to introduce self-declaration for trans people." A gender critical female Labour MP in 2021 doesn't go to the Labour Party Conference having received threats after saying "only women have a cervix" - Starmer says that's "something that shouldn't be said. It's not right." Labour were still backing updating the GRA and Starmer states that "it is the law" that trans women are women.

In 2022-3 he starts shifting and says that "or the vast majority - let's say 99.9 per cent - biology matters". By the 2024 election he is saying it is "very important that we protect female-only spaces" and agreeing with Labour MP's cervix comment that "biologically, she of course is right". After the Supreme Court judgement, Starmer's spokesman states that he does not believe that trans women are women that "a woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear" and that he welcomes that judgement.

And I think that's to your point on committing. I think the left's criticism is kind of true that he was either incredibly dishonest in his leadership campaign and always knew he'd take this turn, or he's rudderless. I think pivoting to what works might be a good strategy - but when you're having to move this far and this fast I think it does, at a certain point, look less like ruthless leadership and more like shifty untrustworthiness. Especially when there are people on the Labour right - such as the Health Secretary Wes Streeting who actually believe this and have basically always been where Starmer is now.

The challenge for the Labour right is that Streeting wouldn't win a leadership election with the membership (I think Labour has started to move from its "we've been out of power for over a decade and will do anything to win" phase to its "we're in power and we hate it" phase ), so they're probably stuck moving a leader who isn't really one of them. Because if there was a leadership election I suspect Angela Rayner (who I like a lot), who is fairly significantly to the left of Starmer would walk it.

Edit: I would add, incidentally, on immigration that the numbers are expected to be declining anyway from a peak of about 1,000,000 net immigration to expected 700,000 this year and down to about (including these changes) 300,000 by the end of this parliament. That's largely because the statistics bodies basically think a lot of "push" factors have driven up the number higher than we'd expect (I'm not sure that's going to naturally just decline as I feel like there's a fair amount of "push" factors still around). But even at 300,000 net immigration - that is still higher than the level we think immigration was at before 2019.

[Tamas]

On the trans issue I think Starmer's about-face is quite understandable. It seems like following the ruling every organisation moved quickly to adopt it and what it met from the public was a deafening silence (I know there was like one protest in London but considering the size of the city and the culture-war focus of the issue, it was miniscule).

This to me seemed to prove one of DorseyGuller's points in regards to the Left - most people don't actually agree with "trans women are women" they just decide to stay silent because they don't need the aggro if they voice their opinion.


I am seeing this morning the Guardian is quoting MPs comparing Starmer to that infamous racist whatshisname for suggesting 1m a year immigration might need a bit of control established.

[Josquius]

On immigration... I really think more should be made of how the current high numbers are brexit in action.
Take away the rights and easy for 2x year old Juan from Andalucía to come work in the UK for a few years to improve his English, popping home to see his mam every other month, maybe moving back after 5 years, maybe marrying Steve from Salford and staying.... If the job he takes in the UK is shit? He finds a new one. Easy.

Then of course its 3x year old Aditya from Bangalore coming over with his wife and 3 kids, solidly in immigrant rather than expat mode. He is of course an indentured labourer. He is going to be underpaid and treat like crap and if he doesn't like it then he's out. Switching really isn't an option.

I support an increase on the minimum income. Though with care workers we really should be reforming rather than just cancelling the whole idea. We need people there.

Never going to happen as it needs ID cards (we should have them) and huge fundamental changes, but I do think the Swiss system of devolution on immigration is largely something we should adopt. Make employers prove they can't find someone locally and devolution to local areas.
If an area wants to keep all immigrants out whilst another wants them, then this can be done.

Politically this immigration move...the timing does suck and stinks as a bit of a reaction. Really helps Reform along. Immigration, like most things in the country, does need fixing. But this should be better framed than it has been.

On the trans issue I think Starmer's about-face is quite understandable. It seems like following the ruling every organisation moved quickly to adopt it and what it met from the public was a deafening silence (I know there was like one protest in London but considering the size of the city and the culture-war focus of the issue, it was miniscule).

This to me seemed to prove one of DorseyGuller's points in regards to the Left - most people don't actually agree with "trans women are women" they just decide to stay silent because they don't need the aggro if they voice their opinion.


I am seeing this morning the Guardian is quoting MPs comparing Starmer to that infamous racist whatshisname for suggesting 1m a year immigration might need a bit of control established.

The trans thing...Oh boy is it a mess.
Absolutely disgusting to see the celebrating bigots, Rowling in full supervillain mode, and so on.
However...An explanation I've heard and am hoping there's truth in... Is this is just the courts ruling based on an act 15 years ago and baked in bad science. The act says there's this gender/sex apartheid and that sex is a binary so the judges have to rule that way.
Sad to see various groups across the country folding into full trans exclusion, though I've heard there could be a challenge from the NHS on the way, given they're the ones who understand biology.
I 100% agree that "Biology matters"... but the science shows that the idea that trans people are always biologically just their assigned birth sex is factually wrong.

Though the decision and the mess around it is a travesty, Starmer just shrugging and accepting things is broadly the right path to take. Given all going on in the US and past shit from the right in the UK its good to set an example of the PM not thinking himself above the law.
He could maybe have made more of a point that the law says something and its not a personal belief, and reminded people of the comment that this shouldn't be taken as victory for terfs and trans people still have rights.
But overall not a huge deal. Sadly, trans rights, though they need defending are really under attack over the past decade, are just not a vote winner.

As to people on the left don't agree trans women are women.... maybe. But nor do they disagree with it either. Polling I've seen tends to be in the league of 20%-30% for and against.
Certainly however there's a lot of ignorance and bigotry about trans people in the particular groups labour should be targeting. Even with my dad this is a topic where he gets a bit defensive and "Freaks!", he'll agree with me when I say they're not hurting anyone so let them be... but would he if it wasn't me talking to him or it was another guy of his class and generation? I doubt it.

This is the tricky part of trans rights. They're a big vote winner for the right but with the left they don't really do much. However if the left doesn't stick to its fundamental values of equality for all, science over tradition, etc... then what's the point in anything?

The possible wild card in this is the Green factor. Labour have been focussing a lot on losing votes to the far right...though the losses to the Greens are something they really shouldn't ignore. Far more manageable. And without selling their soul. A lot of these people will care about trans rights. But I still think they're not something to put a spotlight on.

[garbon]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

[Tamas]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

He is our Angela Merkel, going where the wind blows.

And let's not be dishonest and say he is as bad as the Tories. Seriously?

[Syt]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

Hey. Been missing you around here.

[garbon]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

Hey. Been missing you around here.

[garbon]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

He is our Angela Merkel, going where the wind blows.

And let's not be dishonest and say he is as bad as the Tories. Seriously?

Cuts to benefits
Cuts to foreign aid
Increase in defense spending
Welcoming the declaration that trans women are not women
Making it harder for immigrants to build a life in the UK

Written out like that, it'd be hard to make out how those sound different from Conservative policy aims. I saw Richar Tice give an interview yesterday where he was setting out Reform's stall related to items 1 and 5 and the only substantive difference appeared to be that they didn't think Labour went far enough. He talked about how Reform wants to change income tax threshold so those sitting on benefits would see more value in work and that would more than compensate us for the workforce needed once we kicked out the immigrants (with explicity stated immigration targets) who were keep wages too low.

Now Starmer did sort of nationalise that steel making plant but that's something the right supported nationalising as well.

[garbon]

On the trans debate, watch this video up to minute 3:30. It was amazing watching the Tory ex-minister have a reboot in real time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU6tGCwWIE

[Razgovory]

On the trans issue I think Starmer's about-face is quite understandable. It seems like following the ruling every organisation moved quickly to adopt it and what it met from the public was a deafening silence (I know there was like one protest in London but considering the size of the city and the culture-war focus of the issue, it was miniscule).

This to me seemed to prove one of DorseyGuller's points in regards to the Left - most people don't actually agree with "trans women are women" they just decide to stay silent because they don't need the aggro if they voice their opinion.


I am seeing this morning the Guardian is quoting MPs comparing Starmer to that infamous racist whatshisname for suggesting 1m a year immigration might need a bit of control established.

Transwoman are women is a slogan that few people took literally.  Something like 2% of straight people, 12% of gay men, 28% of lesbians and 51% of bisexual, Trans and non binary people would be interested in dating a trans person.  So a person who claims that Transwomen are women and a person who is transphobic have basically the same interest in actually dating a transwoman.  A bit surprising that bisexual, trans and nonbinary people aren't higher than just over slightly over half.

[Tamas]

I cannot wait until Starmer falls. If Labour is going to position itself as Tory/Reform-lite, we might as well go back to the tories once they come out of the wilderness.

What a colossal disappointment.

He is our Angela Merkel, going where the wind blows.

And let's not be dishonest and say he is as bad as the Tories. Seriously?

Cuts to benefits
Cuts to foreign aid
Increase in defense spending
Welcoming the declaration that trans women are not women
Making it harder for immigrants to build a life in the UK

Written out like that, it'd be hard to make out how those sound different from Conservative policy aims. I saw Richar Tice give an interview yesterday where he was setting out Reform's stall related to items 1 and 5 and the only substantive difference appeared to be that they didn't think Labour went far enough. He talked about how Reform wants to change income tax threshold so those sitting on benefits would see more value in work and that would more than compensate us for the workforce needed once we kicked out the immigrants (with explicity stated immigration targets) who were keep wages too low.

Now Starmer did sort of nationalise that steel making plant but that's something the right supported nationalising as well.

You forget all the toxic nonsense, but OK.

[garbon]

You forget all the toxic nonsense, but OK.

I would argue that abandoning the causes/principles they campaigned on and the tangible impact of the actual policies enacted are more important than the psychodrama, political theatre that the Conservatives inflicted upon the nation. Besides, it isn't like we are free from toxicity as Reform are running amok and getting plenty of air time*.

*note my opinion is not informed by coverage from the Guardian as I stopped reading them when I could either let them have 500+ bots track me or give them money.

[Josquius]

The only argument I can see for i wish we had the tories is at least then crap would have their label and there'd still be the hope of an untainted labour someday soon.

On the trans issue I think Starmer's about-face is quite understandable. It seems like following the ruling every organisation moved quickly to adopt it and what it met from the public was a deafening silence (I know there was like one protest in London but considering the size of the city and the culture-war focus of the issue, it was miniscule).

This to me seemed to prove one of DorseyGuller's points in regards to the Left - most people don't actually agree with "trans women are women" they just decide to stay silent because they don't need the aggro if they voice their opinion.


I am seeing this morning the Guardian is quoting MPs comparing Starmer to that infamous racist whatshisname for suggesting 1m a year immigration might need a bit of control established.

Transwoman are women is a slogan that few people took literally.  Something like 2% of straight people, 12% of gay men, 28% of lesbians and 51% of bisexual, Trans and non binary people would be interested in dating a trans person.  So a person who claims that Transwomen are women and a person who is transphobic have basically the same interest in actually dating a transwoman.  A bit surprising that bisexual, trans and nonbinary people aren't higher than just over slightly over half.

Yet again Raz is giving us the typical twitter talking points...

Would you date a trans woman is a pretty shit measure.
I wouldn't date a trans woman... As my girlfriend would have an issue with that.
Assuming I was single - I wouldn't go out with an obese woman. Does this mean I don't think they're women?
Generally people don't know who they'd go out with till they meet them, and again, not being into someone doesn't mean you don't respect their rights.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Assuming I was single - I wouldn't go out with an obese woman. Does this mean I don't think they're women?

not a good comparison frankly. I'm sure you're aware why.