This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

She represented the town where my Welsh family (distant, of course, but I met them a few years ago) has lived for God knows how long. Cwmbach, near Aberdare (also represented by Keir Hardie back in the day!).

[Хahar 🤔]

Looks like Starmer's strategy of Thomas Deweying himself into No. 10 is finally starting to show its flaws.

It's true, it's hard to think of much worse than being up 22 points in the polls.

[Coldstream]

Looks like Starmer's strategy of Thomas Deweying himself into No. 10 is finally starting to show its flaws.

Rishi Sunak may be many things, but a Harry Truman he is most certainly not.

[PSOL]

How did John McDonnel react to Jeremy getting the boot?

[CumbrianLefty]

How did John McDonnel react to Jeremy getting the boot?

Not terribly well.

But it is also speculated he is privately critical of some of the things Jez has done.

[Pericles]

Looks like Starmer's strategy of Thomas Deweying himself into No. 10 is finally starting to show its flaws.

Rishi Sunak may be many things, but a Harry Truman he is most certainly not.

To be fair, Truman was seen as almost a joke before he won his upset-that's a key part of the story. I can't see Sunak having what it takes though, and in any case I think any government would be doomed with this record and in this economy.

[PSOL]

How did John McDonnel react to Jeremy getting the boot?

Not terribly well.

But it is also speculated he is privately critical of some of the things Jez has done.

Is he risking the boot too?

[Coldstream]

John McDonnell believes in the Labour Party as an institution in a way that Corbyn never did.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I gained a lot of respect for McDonnell when he publicly and apparently sincerely took responsibility for the 2019 catastrophe.

[Coldstream]

Looks like Starmer's strategy of Thomas Deweying himself into No. 10 is finally starting to show its flaws.

Rishi Sunak may be many things, but a Harry Truman he is most certainly not.

To be fair, Truman was seen as almost a joke before he won his upset-that's a key part of the story. I can't see Sunak having what it takes though, and in any case I think any government would be doomed with this record and in this economy.

Except, people were wrong to see Truman like that and are right to see Sunak like that.

[GALeftist]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

[JimJamUK]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I think you’ve gotten a fair impression. The past couple of elections have seen a pretty left wing platform (more in rhetoric than policy it should be said) and Starmer promised to keep pretty much all of it during his leadership campaign. He made some further big spending commitments earlier in his leadership, but for maybe the past year it’s become much more moderate (albeit with some stumbles eg; the trans issue), especially the past few weeks or so. It’s still not clear how triangulated they will be by the election and once in government.

As for why they’re triangulating now, there’s a sense that Labour now have a lead on the economy but it’s a fragile one. The governments finances are so bad they don’t want to be seen as spending money we don’t have, which has meant rowing back on basically every spending commitment that gets brought up. There’s probably some expectations a management, they don’t want to keep big promises that immediately upon getting into office they have to abandon. Also, Labour may need a lead of 5-10% nationally to win a majority, so they don’t want to alienate too many swing voters. There’s still an expectation that there will be some swing back to the Conservatives (10-15% Labour lead), so a further swingback beyond that may get into hung Parliament territory.

[Oryxslayer]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

In addition to what was said above, I think there's also a pervasive idea that Labour are leading right now almost by 'default.' The fundamentals are so bad for the Tories that it would be crazy if Labour wasn't leading by a lot. But if the fundamentals change before the election, which right now appears a year out, there are fears the lead will vanish. That's certainly what Rishi and the Tories are praying for. The By-Elections didn't exactly prove this take wrong either. So Labour are looking for ways to not give voters a reason to abandon them.

TBH I don't buy it, polls suggest the crucial voters where it matters have swung decisively, are are not going to leave without good reasons. But that may not be enough for a majority on their own unless the SNP collapse is complete.

[TheTide]

John McDonnell believes in the Labour Party as an institution in a way that Corbyn never did.

McDonnell is the Michael Gove of the Labour Party. Very intelligent, very ideological, sharp media performer and ultimately very unlikeable and lacking in charm, hence why neither of them have ever become leader. I'm not sure either of them would appreciate the comparison, but I think it's apt.

Corbyn, meanwhile, is the Bill Cash of the Labour Party. Again, not a comparison that either would probably enjoy.

[oldtimer]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I believe they want to be sure because they where burnt so many times before (like 2015), also because public opinion can change quickly along with the economy.

Only 2 years ago there was intense speculation that Starmer was going to be fired, and Boris pushed headlines that he was going to be the longest serving PM ever.

That experience of political mortality must have affected the Labour leadership profoundly.

Look at the long list of political dead bodies of the past 10 years:

Ed Balls
Nick Clegg
David Cameron
George Osborne
Vince Cable
Jeremy Corbyn
Theresa May
David Lidington
Phillip Hammond
The entire Chuka Umunna Party
Joe Swinson
Sajid Javid
Boris Johnson
Liz Truss
Nahdim Zahawi
Kwasi Kwarteng
George Wallace

Sunak and Hunt pending.

So it's obvious why the Labour Leadership don't want to risk being added on that list after it's own near death experience.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most things about the Labour Party's current positioning and rhetoric can be neatly explained by the fact that its model target voter is, roughly speaking, the median resident of Stoke-on-Trent or Bolsover, and most of what cannot be explained by that can be explained by the usual needs to balance out particular interest groups in the Party, especially within the PLP itself.

[CumbrianLefty]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I think you’ve gotten a fair impression. The past couple of elections have seen a pretty left wing platform (more in rhetoric than policy it should be said) and Starmer promised to keep pretty much all of it during his leadership campaign. He made some further big spending commitments earlier in his leadership, but for maybe the past year it’s become much more moderate (albeit with some stumbles eg; the trans issue), especially the past few weeks or so. It’s still not clear how triangulated they will be by the election and once in government.

Interesting that you mention this, yesterday saw Anneliese Dodds issuing a Labour statement on the vexed issue of trans rights. It no longer supports self-ID for all, most notably, but could still be seen as a trans-positive offering overall - especially compared to what most Tories now think.

Predictably it has thus been condemned by both extremes in the "debate". In particular it is becoming ever more obvious that the most militant on the GC wing will settle for nothing less than "trans people do not exist and it is all nothing more than a mental illness that should be cured".

(comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are available)

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I think you’ve gotten a fair impression. The past couple of elections have seen a pretty left wing platform (more in rhetoric than policy it should be said) and Starmer promised to keep pretty much all of it during his leadership campaign. He made some further big spending commitments earlier in his leadership, but for maybe the past year it’s become much more moderate (albeit with some stumbles eg; the trans issue), especially the past few weeks or so. It’s still not clear how triangulated they will be by the election and once in government.

Interesting that you mention this, yesterday saw Anneliese Dodds issuing a Labour statement on the vexed issue of trans rights. It no longer supports self-ID for all, most notably, but could still be seen as a trans-positive offering overall - especially compared to what most Tories now think.

Predictably it has thus been condemned by both extremes in the "debate". In particular it is becoming ever more obvious that the most militant on the GC wing will settle for nothing less than "trans people do not exist and it is all nothing more than a mental illness that should be cured".

(comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are available)

Even if you accept the premise that you shouldn't be allowed to get a gender recognition certificate without a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the fact is that trans healthcare in the UK is considered a dysfunctional joke by most people who've ever needed to interact with it. A grim joke I hear quite often is that the present woes of the NHS under the Tories are just everyone's healthcare becoming more like trans people's. A policy of 'you need a doctor to diagnose you' that doesn't properly engage with how unreasonably difficult it is to see that doctor in the first place isn't serious, and Dodds' piece does not. It just restates what has been Labour's policy on trans rights since Starmer took over - 'we won't do what the most extreme GCs (which is more and more of a tautology by the day, but whatever) want, but please stop asking us about any of this'.

Comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are, indeed, available. After all, no Labour manifesto ever promised to repeal Section 28, it was pressure from Labour backbenchers and the Lib Dems that made that happen.

[afleitch]

Oh f-ck off

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1684134885458608130

[Zinneke]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

I think you’ve gotten a fair impression. The past couple of elections have seen a pretty left wing platform (more in rhetoric than policy it should be said) and Starmer promised to keep pretty much all of it during his leadership campaign. He made some further big spending commitments earlier in his leadership, but for maybe the past year it’s become much more moderate (albeit with some stumbles eg; the trans issue), especially the past few weeks or so. It’s still not clear how triangulated they will be by the election and once in government.

Interesting that you mention this, yesterday saw Anneliese Dodds issuing a Labour statement on the vexed issue of trans rights. It no longer supports self-ID for all, most notably, but could still be seen as a trans-positive offering overall - especially compared to what most Tories now think.

Predictably it has thus been condemned by both extremes in the "debate". In particular it is becoming ever more obvious that the most militant on the GC wing will settle for nothing less than "trans people do not exist and it is all nothing more than a mental illness that should be cured".

(comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are available)

Even if you accept the premise that you shouldn't be allowed to get a gender recognition certificate without a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the fact is that trans healthcare in the UK is considered a dysfunctional joke by most people who've ever needed to interact with it. A grim joke I hear quite often is that the present woes of the NHS under the Tories are just everyone's healthcare becoming more like trans people's. A policy of 'you need a doctor to diagnose you' that doesn't properly engage with how unreasonably difficult it is to see that doctor in the first place isn't serious, and Dodds' piece does not. It just restates what has been Labour's policy on trans rights since Starmer took over - 'we won't do what the most extreme GCs (which is more and more of a tautology by the day, but whatever) want, but please stop asking us about any of this'.

Comparisons with attitudes to homosexuality back in the day are, indeed, available. After all, no Labour manifesto ever promised to repeal Section 28, it was pressure from Labour backbenchers and the Lib Dems that made that happen.

What are GCs?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

What are GCs?

Gender Critical, it's strain of feminism that rejects the existence of Gender as anything other than a misogynist concept and thus views trans people with inherent suspicion as there identity makes no sense if you don't believe in the existence of gender

[EastAnglianLefty]

They're nominally sceptical of gender, but in practice they combine biological essentialism with a tendency to take positions that implicitly reinforce gender norms.

[GALeftist]

Oh f-ck off

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1684134885458608130

This is beyond the pale. All but a straight up transphobic dogwhistle. At this point, unless my MP was one of the 11 Labour MPs who voted against the usage of Section 35 or had otherwise taken a strong and unambiguous stance in favor of trans rights, I would be leaning towards voting LibDem (or SNP/Plaid Cymru/whatever). I understand that the Tories are running the country into the ground and it's important to get them out, but at some point you have to draw a line and say that a firm stance against bigotry is not negotiable. Very sorry today for all British trans people; I am thinking of you all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, he's just clumsily responding to a gotcha question that he hates being asked with a tautology. I can guarantee that there isn't a single subject that he would less like to talk about by this point.

[CumbrianLefty]

In practice, Labour under Starmer will still treat trans people vastly better than Tories now do.

Anyone who can't see this is frankly deranged from too many ultra online brainworms.