The Doctor

probably the fact that she's using deliberately inflammatory and false language. Like let's be very clear about this, trans healthcare in the UK for under 18s is puberty blockers at most and that's if you're one of the couple of hundred people who've managed to get through all the hurdles, and even then the outgoing health secretary put a temporary ban in place which Streeting has indicated his desire to extend - in reality, the totality of transition for most under 18s is a change of name and of presentation (haircut, clothing etc). Presenting this as mutilation is not neutral behaviour, it's a deliberate attempt to portray trans people as inherently predatory towards children and cannot be taken independently from the push from the far right to turn groomer into a slur for LGBT people, which creates an environment where things like the murder of Brianna Ghey, and the knife attack in Stockton last week, occur. she's trying to create an environment where hate crimes are common place and have a riled up base behind her. pretty sure any reasonable person would recognise that as gunning for votes by hate.

I mean let's be real, they won't, and over the last few years haven't. the role of a state run broadcasting organisation is to broadcast the agenda of the state and the Tories have put their guy in charge of it so the BBC will focus on the editorial line that he lays down

Yes, there is of course a huge difference between an election happening 2 years after an event and choosing to inflict a shit ton more damage on yourself 2 years after an event mind.

Liz Truss' suicide budget was long after that happened and caused a mini crash. it's not comparable to labour 2010

eh, as the forums foremost Blair hater (man needs to be silent unless it's in the Hague begging for mercy), the current state of the country and economy is not significantly better than it was in 2010 and that's without the mitigating circumstances of a global financial crash caused by American bankers.

iirc that's for amortization. you can give a player a 600 year contract but you still can't spread the transfer fee on your books across more than 6.

it doesn't render their victory moot, facts are they've got 5 years. however, as a party with a 172 seat majority, and a party who could lose 80 seats and still pass the 326 seat mark, we should be looking at a comfortable two elections (10 years) minimum for this labour to be in government. we're not, they're at risk in 2029, because they've made no gains in support over the last 5 years and the difference between worst defeat in 80 years and a landslide is down to Tory and SNP implosion. labour need to recognize that and use the next 5 years to shore up support, because all it takes is the SNP and the Tories to shake off the stench of corruption (admittedly probably easier for the SNP as it's more attached to the fall of Sturgeon and Yousafs collapse, Swinney can draw a line under it more easily than the tories given the next leader will likely be one of sunaks cabinet) and labour are back in catastrophic defeat territory

eh, it's more an acknowledgement of how the voting system in the UK works. but, by all means, do tell John Curtice he doesn't understand the last election: https://www.thetimes.com/article/5b65534c-199f-48c9-bf77-92138e0a30f4?shareToken=5be06d9c405dbff1957b3d2391d959c4

I would love for that to be true but like, reform and Tories combined votes would have seen a pretty comfortable win. reform will cannibalise the tories, particularly if they go for Badenoch as leader, and Tory politics will come back with a different branding at most. We're seeing what happens when a weak centre right leader comes up against a fascist in France and the route is set clear for Starmers labour to be macron-ed if he doesn't take heed.

eh, id disagree on that. there are reasons why people wanted to give the tories a kicking that wouldn't have happened under Corbyns labour, which mostly relate to how the press stopped propping the tories up once the opposition had been made safe (Teflon Boris turning out to not be so Teflon after all), but ultimately labour did not win the election so much as the tories lost it. labour stood still from their worst defeat and watched the SNP and Tories gnaw their own arms off

no, vote share is what matters here. if it was a change in labour and starting to appeal to more people, the vote share should have significantly jumped. it's remained static because this landslide isn't driven by more people wanting this labour government, it's driven by the collapse of the tories. you point out the surge of reform, however that is something I've already addressed - the tories haemorrhaged votes to them, and other tories stayed home because of this iteration of them. the idea that the low turn out was actually labour supporters who felt so comfortable that they didn't need to vote for the party not in power is ridiculous copium. what labour have got is a sandcastle majority, no foundations and will be washed away the moment the tide changes, because the voting data indicates that this landslide is ultimately because people wanted to give the tories a good kicking and labour just happened to be there. this shouldn't be a controversial take, it's literally what John Curtice was saying last night and labour would be well served by showing a degree of humility and heeding it if they want more than 1 term in government

yep, that's why I don't rely solely on them, because they can become a bit abstract.

sure, let's look at some of Ecos 14 characteristics of fascism. Cult of tradition, rejection of modernism, call for action for actions sake, fear of difference and contempt for the weak. and for good measure, some of Britts 14 defining characteristics Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism Disdain for the importance of human rights Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause Obsession with crime and punishment Rampant cronyism and corruption I think anyone can see how easily these all apply to reform?

come off it, last nights results are a complete repudiation of that. labours vote share basically remained unmoved from 2019, the difference between a historic defeat and a landslide was nothing to do with any changes Starmer made and everything to do with reform splitting the Tory vote and Tories generally staying home. as to why, that was because the press no longer felt the need to prop up the Tories and so they collapsed under a mountain of scandals. now, I don't think even his wildest critics could claim that Corbyn is responsible for media regulation in this country

reform literally are fash though. this insistence on not naming the problem until it's at the door is bizarre. the point of learning from history is seeing how the Nazis ultimately took power and heading off repeats before they can get there, not scolding anyone who points it out for watering down the term right up until we reach a 1933 equivalent

not 6 months ago the ICJ found South Africas case that Israel was committing genocide to be "plausible" and issued orders to Israel to cease certain activities. they did so again six weeks ago. if you're wanting a judge to bang a gavel and say "I find you guilty of genocide" then you'll be waiting a while (this is a world where the US has a standing position to invade the Hague if they get prosecuted for war crimes and would likely do so for their closest allies) but in reality the courts have been very clear that this is a genocide

functional Tory party update

well yes, and I'd love for the greens to build off this and become more major players to push that but I don't think it's fair to say that big issues don't become cause celebres and then cite Gaza

I mean, you could very reasonably argue that an ongoing genocide done in public with the support of the British and US governments is a huge issue... probably when people have something to vote for, to be enthusiastic for, rather than just to vote against

yea. it's making strides in the right direction from people I know who live there, but realistically it's Canada or Aotearoa for me

thats the option in the west, Aotearoa New Zealand was under consideration but I'm a bit cooler on it since National won. honestly might look outside the west, as places like Thailand are making strides in the right direction

same as Dewsbury and Batley, Blackburn, Ilford North, Leicester South, arguably Islington North, anywhere that has a higher than average Muslim population, labour are taking a kicking over starmers position on Gaza. Phillips is actually one of the more principled ones in that regard but lot of people vote indirectly for the party leader they want to be PM rather than the local MP

pretty much irrelevant whether I respect the spineless prat tbh. he's gonna be in government for however long before the press, having gotten tired of kicking the SNP and Tories to death, find a new target, like say a relatively unpopular incoming prime minister who despite winning a landslide with his party, saw his majority in his constituency cut in half. I would feel pretty safe betting he is not still leader come 2029. in the meantime, he'll do what he wants and I'll continue to put together contingency plans to flee the UK because it's becoming an increasingly unsafe place to be visibly queer in and he's not indicating a desire to reverse that.

labour losing Dewsbury & Batley, Blackburn, Leicester South to independents, nearly losing Ilford, Starmers majority being cut in half, vote shares down something like 7% among muslims. FPTP means they won't care because they've won at a canter, but they are taking a pretty big kicking from previously their core support over Gaza, pretty much only winning because tories and SNP have shit the bed. doesn't bode well for 2029 if they don't try to be genuinely transformative

a cynic would say that joke parties already get like 600 seats between them