UK Politics VI - Will Britain Steir to Karmer Waters?

That is sensible though, as in it's logically consistent. It would be nonsensical to think that trans women are men, but trans men are also men.

Edit: Unless of course you have some concept of "woman" being some pure perfect form and anything that transgresses this in any way puts you in the corrupt category of "man", which wouldn't exactly be out of character for radfems.
 
This is not the right thread for philosophical discussion, though.
 
That is sensible though, as in it's logically consistent. It would be nonsensical to think that trans women are men, but trans men are also men.

Edit: Unless of course you have some concept of "woman" being some pure perfect form and anything that transgresses this in any way puts you in the corrupt category of "man", which wouldn't exactly be out of character for radfems.

Do you think the average bigot/terf/gc/biological essentialist could tell the difference between a cis man and a trans man?
 
Are there any trans men in CFC to give us their POV?
 
With the Supreme Court’s decision this last week, one writer wonders if this is the end of the politics of identity and grievance Moderator Action: *SNIP* Trolling - lymond

Britain has finally overthrown the suffocating tyranny of the woke Left
Labour is still in power but at least saner, calmer voices will be able to make themselves heard again


Something many thought impossible may finally be happening: the political dominance of progressives is coming to an end in Britain. The Labour Party may be in power, but the woke Left is losing control. This is good news for women and for politics more generally, and will allow saner Left-wing voices to prevail. Conservatives remain stuck with a Labour government, but woke cultural warriors will no longer shape and lead the political agenda in the way that they have.

True, some activists are still in denial. They are determined to pretend that nothing has changed, despite last week’s landmark Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women under the stipulations of the Equality Act. The director of the London Marathon is insisting that trans women should be allowed to enter this weekend’s event as females. Some NHS managers have intimated their willingness to defy the judgment. Various institutions will try to misconstrue the law by, for example, wrongly insisting that transgender access to single-sex spaces must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Despite such defiance, the fact remains that everything has changed. Stonewall’s response is Exhibit A.

The Supreme Court decision delivered a severe blow to the organisation. Its near-total silence in the days since speaks volumes. Having grown to be as powerful as any union and intricately linked to the Labour Party, Stonewall is politically astute. The movement which contributed so much towards gay equality in years past seems to have grasped that its recent trans activism, which included suggesting that nurseries were not doing enough to help children as young as two “recognise their trans identity, was a terrible mistake.

To restore its former status as a champion of the gay rights movement, Stonewall will have to radically change. There are signs this is already under way. In February, for example, it watered down its definition of transphobia.

Exhibit B is the beginning of the end of woke capitalism. The progressive Left’s march through the corporations appears to be grinding to a halt, aided perhaps by Donald Trump’s war on DEI in the US. The spread of identity politics activism throughout the workforce has been facilitated by militant HR departments and the weak-willed corporate leaders who defer to them. But employment lawyer Peter Daly assures me these trends will now be subject to scrutiny.

“This is a major blow for the HR industry,” he says. “Executives need to reckon with the fact that they have been pushing out unlawful processes and procedures. Companies are going to have to ask themselves why they have been competing with each other to misapply the law for the sake of a high ranking on the Stonewall Workplace Index.”

The end of the progressive epoch is relieving news for women. Granting transgender women the right to access female spaces has always clashed with the rights of women to preserve single-sex spaces for their privacy, safety and dignity.
Full recognition of transgender women has always necessitated the erasure of the female sex. The two are mutually exclusive, however much the extremists pretended otherwise with their denial of women’s rights and biological uniqueness, and repetition of the mantra that “trans rights are human rights”. It was a small group of gender-critical, Left-leaning campaigners who destroyed this dangerous illusion. I have been humbled to meet many of those women who have suffered dreadfully for the cause, from literary agents purged from their industry for being “dangerous and undesirable” to civil servants managed out for raising the alarm about identity politics’ infiltration into the supposedly neutral public sector. The transgender movement may have had noble aims but the damage it has caused to other, rights-based movements is hard to overstate.

By boldly asserting that trans individuals should change legal sex with no conditions attached, or that biological males should be permitted to compete in female sporting competitions, they made a mockery of the universal rights they claim to champion. They also demolished the shared trust and empathy that must exist between citizens, vulnerable or not, in any healthy society.

The trans lobby abused public sympathy by making increasingly unrealistic demands. The absurdity of the past few years has fostered mass discontent with the entire concept of minority rights; many now see rights-based politics as shrill, delusional, manipulative, narcissistic and trivial, rather than an important element of our liberal democratic system. This is a great tragedy.

What has now changed is that the dogmas which underpin woke identity politics are no longer tenable. The idea that there is no factual truth, only “lived experience”, has been exposed as at odds with objective reality, sanctified by law.
But there is another reason why the tyranny of progressivism may soon come to an end: there is now a cohesive rival ready to take over. The Blue Labour faction on the Right of the party is determined to lead a Left-wing “return to the real”. It wants to rebuild the UK’s hollowed-out industry, re-establish Labour as the party of work (rather than welfare), and forge a new covenant between the remote political class and the alienated people.

Those who are not natural Labour voters might be tempted to dismiss their efforts as wishful thinking. By their own admission, they have their work cut out.

As one Blue Labour MP told me: “There’s still too much party sympathy towards identity politics. But then again, there are a lot of MPs who are very new and want to be loyal to Starmer.”

There’s something about Blue Labour that feels of the moment; and there is something about the identity politics brigade that feels passé.

In the 21st century, people are craving a more grounded, reasoned political discourse. And if there is a rising sense of urgency that the West needs “to wake up”, it is not to the injustices that allegedly corrode its conscience but to the geopolitical and economic catastrophes that imperil its very existence.

In recent years, the politics of identity and grievance seemed to have become unstoppable. How ever hard some of us argued against it, and how ever often its claims were proven to be hollow, this juggernaut carried on regardless. But with last week’s judgment all that might have changed. Now it’s no longer outlandish to suspect that “woke” politics may soon be a distant nightmare.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Starmer now wants to raid benefit claimants' bank accounts and potentially even cancel their driving licences if they are believed to be able to repay over-payments.

So, he allegedly wants to get people off benefits and into work, but is also apparently willing to remove one of the easiest ways to get work if a computer says that they're being repeatedly overpaid (and then not paying it back, because of course this is usually done without the claimant's knowledge).
 
Ehrc is advocating for what amounts to ban of trans people in public and work spaces


image-2.png


I can't use the women's bathroom but also apparently can't use the mens? WTH
 
Last edited:
Not much of a surprise as Britain must have the least democratic electoral system in Europe.
Can't think of another country where you'd have a massive majority (or any majority) in parliament, by only getting 1/3 of the vote.
Likewise for getting 14/100 of the vote => 7/1000 of parliament seats.

Fairly common. USA 1 in 3 don't vote so you only need about 1 in 3 and hypothetically 21-23%.

If 25% don't vote it creeps up to 37.5%. Take out wasted votes it's 35%ish.

In UK only 30% are vaguely left wing apparently, progressives are 16%.

Depending on country the right wing number is similar. IK largest factions are centris in the voting public apparently.
 
1/3 of 60% (how many bothered to vote in the UK 2024 general election) is 20%.
There's no other european country - and likely no other country period - where that ever got you 2/3 of parliament.
But the point was about vote percentage - turnout isn't something you control.
 
According to this poll, the majority of Brits now prefer PR – just so long as we keep their local single MP.

Half of Britons (49%) would support the introduction of a PR system, almost twice as many as the 26% who favour retaining our present FPTP system.

<snip>

And there is a clear lead for the status quo when it comes to constituencies. Nearly half of Britons (45%) would prefer to have just a single local MP, as they currently have under FPTP, compared to just 29% who would rather have multiple MPs from different parties in constituencies covering larger areas, as would be necessary under most PR systems.


 
According to this poll, the majority of Brits now prefer PR – just so long as we keep their local single MP.

A brilliant almost contradiction.

It is theoretically achievable.

One elects the numbers of MPs for each party by proportional election, and
then allocates an MP to a constituency by some complicated algorithm.

Of course what it would mean is that one is eliminating
independent MPs and one is no longer voting for the person.

I read the article.

It is very long on party and parties, and short on constituencies.
 
For a true proportional representation election system, the UK has to reduce the number of constituencies by a minimum of ~55%. Preferable into the 280-300 bracket, assuming that the number of available parliament seats is unchanged.

The electorate needs to know, that it matters who finishes second or even third and fourth in their constituency, depending on size. That is also the best direct way to address low voter turnout at elections, which two-party systems are particularly notorious for. You are more motivated to turn up and vote (especially if you don't vote Tory or Labour), if you know that a third place in the race is enough to secure your preferred candidate a seat.
 
I have shared why before, but I am not in favour of PR systems. In my view the best system is single transferable vote.

Interestingly, I was in Spain this week and the people I was with were sharing that in Spain the discussion is that people want to move to FPTP, such is the trouble of the PR system there.
 
The only way I could see to do a proportional hybrid that does not take away current constituencies (and keep constituencies meaningful; eg, people from the central party list are not randomly assigned a seat based on the whims of the party), and without removing the ability of independent to exist) would be something like this :

1. Everything is the same as single-constituency system until the tallying of the vote, except that parties can register either as independent or regional. Regional parties are excluded from the national candidates debate (they are not running for government), and are prohibited from running in more than a certain percentage of seats, but get an advantage outlined below.

2. Any seat where an independent candidate or regional party candidate has won a plurality is assigned to that candidate, and will not be part of proportional distribution (BUT the votes received by national parties are still counted in determining their respective share of seats).

3. The remaining seats are then distributed between national parties according to their share of the vote. Then, those seats are distributed between the parties according to margin of victory/defeatt. To wit:
3a. First, go through the seats from highest to lowest margin of victory, and assign each seat to the party that had the plurality of votes. If a seat would go to a party that has already reached its quota, skip it.
3b. Go through the remaining seats in order from lowest to highest margin between second and first place, and assign them to the second-place party. Again, any seat that would take its party over quota is skipped.
3c. Repeat 3b for third parties, fourth parties, etc, until all seats are assigned.

Yes, it'S an ugly hybrid. Allowing for current-level constituency representation, independent candidates and regional parties while having even roughly proportional respresentation and not drastically cutting the number of seat is essentially the electoral version of squaring the circle.

The easy (in term of organization) alternative would of course be to replace unelected second chambers with proportionally elected second chambers, so the house of commons remain the same (constituencies) but house of lords/senate take the proportional role, but, well, see "abolish the house of lord or senate" for why THAT is a difficulty.
 
Last edited:
So, rather surprisingly, this week the Government has agreed to publish crime figures by nationality later this year. Only the US and Denmark do so at the moment.

Is this pandering to the racists, or is it a case of FOI Rules OK? and a case of simply telling people the truth (no matter how uncomfortable it is) regarding mass immigration?
Is it just ‘pandering to Nigel’ as some claim?

The figures are likely to be quite horrific.

This piece from Robert Jenrick the other day included the following:

The facts are in: mass immigration has led to a rise in crime.
Coming to this country is a privilege, never a right. It should not be afforded to anyone likely to endanger our citizens


The Government has been forced, through freedom of information requests, to release indicative data. The preliminary findings are extremely concerning. For instance, Algerians appear 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft as British citizens. Congolese nationals appear to be 12 times more likely, and Somalians eight times more likely, to be convicted of a violent crime than UK citizens.

The initial data on sexual offences – which needs verifying further – is even more alarming. The data appears to show that Afghans and Eritreans are more than 20 times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British citizens. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be convicted for sex crimes.
<snip>
Freedom of Information requests thus far suggest 66 nationalities have a higher conviction rate per 10,000 than Britons.

I don’t care if that ruffles Left-wing feathers. The public – and policymakers – need the truth. It will be hard for some to read. But I’ll take a hard truth over a gentle lie every single time.



The Guardian’s take:

 
So, rather surprisingly, this week the Government has agreed to publish crime figures by nationality later this year. Only the US and Denmark do so at the moment.

Is this pandering to the racists, or is it a case of FOI Rules OK? and a case of simply telling people the truth (no matter how uncomfortable it is) regarding mass immigration?
Is it just ‘pandering to Nigel’ as some claim?

The figures are likely to be quite horrific.

This piece from Robert Jenrick the other day included the following:

The facts are in: mass immigration has led to a rise in crime.
Coming to this country is a privilege, never a right. It should not be afforded to anyone likely to endanger our citizens


The Government has been forced, through freedom of information requests, to release indicative data. The preliminary findings are extremely concerning. For instance, Algerians appear 18 times more likely to be convicted of theft as British citizens. Congolese nationals appear to be 12 times more likely, and Somalians eight times more likely, to be convicted of a violent crime than UK citizens.

The initial data on sexual offences – which needs verifying further – is even more alarming. The data appears to show that Afghans and Eritreans are more than 20 times more likely to be convicted of sexual offences than British citizens. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be convicted for sex crimes.
<snip>
Freedom of Information requests thus far suggest 66 nationalities have a higher conviction rate per 10,000 than Britons.

I don’t care if that ruffles Left-wing feathers. The public – and policymakers – need the truth. It will be hard for some to read. But I’ll take a hard truth over a gentle lie every single time.



The Guardian’s take:

I think that publishing this data is all well and good. But as always, the interpretation must be done carefully.

It is meaningless to say: ‘X nationality has a rate of Y compared to British at Z’ without normalising the data in at least 2 ways: age and sex.

That is, one of the reason I expect that crimes by immigrants will be higher per capita is that there are a lot of old British people who don’t commit many crimes.
 
I have shared why before, but I am not in favour of PR systems. In my view the best system is single transferable vote.

Interestingly, I was in Spain this week and the people I was with were sharing that in Spain the discussion is that people want to move to FPTP, such is the trouble of the PR system there.
STV is a proportional system. Source: the majority of elections I vote in are STV.
 
"Driving while black" is a real thing, so I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that black people are convicted of more crimes than white people.

Robert Jenrick claiming to "take a hard truth over a gentle lie every single time" is hilarious when you remember his political career of mendacity and failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom