That Starmer fella...

.

1 Attachment

Proposed change from 10% to 25% of MPs needed to vote for a leadership candidate.

With 136K Covid deaths, increase to National Insurance, Energy price rises, Petrol shortages etc, Starmer should be knocking it out the park at the conference. Instead, it’s Starmer’s continued purge of anyone vaguely left of centre that’s getting the headlines.

I do not accept the way you interpret the posts you have quoted but I've said I'm going to walk away because this topic is not safe for female people, so after this post I'm disconnecting for a while.

However, I hope I can bring you a bit of happiness..

I'd love to believe trans women hadn't been murdered during the time period in question

From the "counting dead women" site, as of April 2021
https://kareningalasmith.com/2021/04/21/counting-dead-trans-people/

As far as I know, nine males who fall under the trans umbrella have
been killed in the UK since 2009. I don’t know which of them would
have described themselves as cross-dressers, transsexuals, transwomen,
trans women, or even say that they are women but using Stonewall’s
concept of the trans umbrella, there are nine. There have been over
1,800 women killed by men in the UK in the same time.

The most recent being:

Amy Griffiths, 51, was killed by Martin Saberi, in Worcestershire in
January 2019. The two have been described as friends.

So, on IWD 2021, when Rosie Duffield (correction: Not Duffield, Jess Phillips) read out the list of deaths in the UK since the last IWD (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-5636582), there had been no trans women murdered in the period.

Let's think about those numbers.

9 possibly trans women. Over 1,800 female people. 200 dead female people for every 1 trans women.

Now, to be fair Ms Karen Ingala Smith is not an official census. She builds her list from research and available sources. It's entirely possible she missed someone and that would be tragic. But I very much doubt she has missed hundred of killings of UK trans women, not least because such cases would be a significant topic of concern and discussion.

So yeah, make the argument the site should be called Counting Dead Female People, I'd agree with that. And make the argument that maybe IWD should be International Female Day - after all, no one is saying that Females can't exist as a meaningful social and political group, right? And a day to focus on the global challenges and progress of Female people would indeed be welcome. But don't take a list of murdered female people and make the most important thing about it whether it's using the "right" definition of woman. I'd say that is poor taste - in fact I'd say "poor taste" doesn't even come close.

Solidarity. It’s ludicrous that we have reached a point in progressive political discourse where women can be castigated and denounced as “bigots” for standing up for their sex-based rights.
The population at large - ie the people the Labour Party needs to win over if ever they want to hold power again - are also well aware of what a biological woman is and what a biological woman isn’t. I think that Starmer would be wise to bear this in mind.

I had posted then deleted this because I didn't want to get into it but I'll repost because it does make grim reading for the UK. it is from a new council of europe report on "combating rising hate against LGBTI people in europe" (UK rubbing shoulders with poland, russia, and hungary on this stuff):

1 Attachment

Starmer proposing ending private schools charitable status and raise £1.7bn in the process
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1441858165037928452

Great policy.

He should adopt more of Corbyn's more popular policies.

Not going to win many votes on here.

Seemed to be a pretty popular opinion in the golf club thread the other week, even with those who had been, maybe not so much with those currently paying

The trans arguments and the anti-Semitism arguments are both pretty similar in that there are a lot of people telling the protagonists that their experience isn't valid.

It's a strange, and difficult, one.

Why not?

I've always held (and shared the belief with others from similar privileged backgrounds) that private schools should be treated as any other private enterprise.

Their charitable status is a laughable anachronism, and any charity they do provide is marginal and qualified.

If they are unable to function as a business, they shouldn't function, or should be nationalised.

I'd resolved to avoid that thread, but having dipped in to see this part of it, I'd never realised how big the private school x fixed gear scene was. I thought it was just the young 'uns from St Pauls School who were on the forum a few years ago.

So we agree that the founder of that blog believes in excluding trans women from her list of murdered women. That's something.

t’s ludicrous that we have reached a point in progressive political discourse where women can be castigated and denounced as “bigots” for standing up for their sex-based rights.

Would you like to point out to me where, legislatively speaking, these 'sex based rights' provide for the blanket exclusion of trans people?

EDIT: I'll save you the bother. The Equality Act 2010 defines sex and gender protections separately and defines what happens where those rights come into conflict. It also mandates that by default, trans people should be included.

Those who say that trans people should be excluded by default are not arguing for their sex based rights, they're arguing for the removal of gender based protections. Keep that in mind, please.

Starmer proposing ending private schools charitable status and raise £1.7bn in the process

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1­441858165037928452

Great. Now let's do churches and religions.

And multinational corporations.

Oh, wait...

Why does Rachel Reeves feel the need to be a crap George Osbourne, is fiscal responsibility and balancing the books aka austerity really what we need?

Successful day for Starmer, got all his reforms through

“Getting Labour election ready”, the term used to describe the changes to the leadership election rules

it's a shame SKSQC won't lead labour into an election

You can see why though, as economic competence is an area where Labour poll really badly, despite the Tories implementing austerity, then rowing back on it, crashing us out of the EU, and then throwing billions at Covid.

What they need is creativity, and an exciting alternative approach, but failing that, just being a dull 'safe pair of hands' is where we'll end up, and we'll continue getting criticised from left and right.

anyone else finding this conference hugely depressing? In the context of everything that is going on, all that Starmer and his band of merry men are doing is waging an all-out war on the left. Rachel Reeves is positioning Labour to the right of the Tories in terms of fiscal policy. What is the fucking point

Hoping it will get better now internal votes are done

Why do so many on the left think that being able to balance the books is somehow being pro austerity, or a right wing concept? We are not trusted on the economy - the media will check our homework in a way that they don't for the Tories. Having answers to those challenges is vital if we want to be credible.

I don't think Rachel Reeves proposal to scrap business rates is in any way 'to the right of the Tories' nor do I think her proposal to support a global minimum corporation tax is in any way 'pro austerity'. I think her whole argument is that austerity is not fiscally responsible. It's possible to argue with both the heart AND the head.

How to engage with your members...

https://twitter.com/GNDRising/status/1442088448739790857?s=19

Balance the books has become a bit of a byword for austerity, rightly or wrongly, trying to cut spending to reduce debt like household spending, rather than investing and spending wisely to help the economy. The phrase sounds Tory, and sounds like what they accuse labour of not being able to whilst doing the exact opposite themselves. I've not looked at her propositions yet so can't comment specifically, but I know I'd avoid getting dragged into book balancing rhetoric at all.