Why is Keir Starmer trying to put so many voters off?

Keir Starmer is honouring the result of a democratic vote to leave the European Union, for which I respect him.

His plan to make Brexit work comprises:

Sort out the Northern Ireland Protocol
Tear down unnecessary trade barriers
Support the world's leading services and scientists
Keep Britain safe
Invest in Britain.

It is easy to prefer those to investment in the super-wealthy so that those running government may gain.

Iam64

Starmer is legally correct, some trans men have a vagina. I don’t get the impression he’s trying to ‘appeal’ to both sides of the trans debate. Rather, he’s trying to avoid being dragged down a rabbit hole.
His history on women’s issues, as well as his personal life suggest he’s a decent, trustworthy man who has some ethics , unlike Johnson. The Labour front bench has excellent women and men like Wes Streeting. How anyone ‘on the left’ can consider not voting Labour to keep the tories out is beyond my understanding.
Andy Burnham us our mayor. He stood for the Labour leadership twice, unsuccessfully. The left didn’t like him

I agree with you. I think Starmer does know (obviously) that biological sex cannot be changed, and adding bits or removing bits of bodies doesn't and cannot change this.

I don't blame him for not saying to get dragged down the fantasy rabbit hole, but he does need to be clearer.

I like Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham. Both, like Starmer, seem to be decent men.?

Thank you DaisyAnne

Starmer speech yesterday was about In 2022, Britain is stuck.

Stuck with an economy where wages have flatlined and household bills are going through the roof.

Stuck with broken public services that no longer work for those that they serve.

Stuck in queues for passports or driving licences.

Stuck waiting for delayed trains and buses.

Stuck on hold as we try to get a doctor’s appointment.

Britain is also stuck with a government that has no plan.

He later went on to say:

Under Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU.

We will not be joining the single market or the customs union.

Now, I know some people don’t want to hear that, but it is my job to be frank and to be honest – and you will always get that with me.

The reason I say this is simple.

Nothing about revisiting those rows will help stimulate growth or bring down food prices or help British business thrive in the modern world.

It would simply be a recipe for more division, it would distract us from taking on the challenges facing people and it would ensure Britain remained stuck for another decade.

You can read the full speech, with the steps to sorting out the mess here.

Just vote Labour... this seems the only point of contention that is cropping up and realistically, I'd rather he knew what a democracy is than what a woman is

Agree VS???

varian

It looks like Starmer has sold out - thereby losing the support of all the voters that thought he was an honest politician.

What a missed opportunity for him to speak the truth about brexit and stand up for what is right and what would be best for our country.

He is not the man or the leader I hoped he was.

I don't feel he has sold out at all. But then, I am not a died-in-the-wool Liberal.

I think he has a plan to make things work. Which is good. The current government doesn't; very little is working at the moment.

Do you know what the EU will look like in 10 years? That is about the time it would take us to rejoin, according to those who know about these things. Starmer does not insult the countries in Europe in the way Johnson does. He has a tempered and diplomatic style. I imagine that the EU are well aware that he wants a working relationship with them where trade is concerned, not to use them as a mall-constructed first step towards being "King of the World".

I think this is a wise move. There will be far more voters who are happy to make a trade agreement with the continent work. I get the impression that there are far fewer who are as convinced about a political agreement. You may think they are wrong but that will not change what they think.

In the next election, the LDs cannot win outright. They could, if the LP got into power, influence the policies of the next government, which could be a minority Labour one. That influence could be far more useful to the Liberals than the coalition with the Tories which damaged them for years. They could grow and build and, the greatest hope of many, get PR for the voters.

Need to add, I do like Andy B

Starmer is legally correct, some trans men have a vagina. I don’t get the impression he’s trying to ‘appeal’ to both sides of the trans debate. Rather, he’s trying to avoid being dragged down a rabbit hole.
His history on women’s issues, as well as his personal life suggest he’s a decent, trustworthy man who has some ethics , unlike Johnson. The Labour front bench has excellent women and men like Wes Streeting. How anyone ‘on the left’ can consider not voting Labour to keep the tories out is beyond my understanding.
Andy Burnham us our mayor. He stood for the Labour leadership twice, unsuccessfully. The left didn’t like him

I don't think Starmer is trying to appeal to both sides of the trans debate, I think he is trying to appeal to the sensible middle.

I had a break from discussing trans issues and coming back I was once again shocked at the propaganda, the discussion techniques designed to frustrate, twist, shut down and ride roughshod over any kind of support towards trans people.

I hope we have time for more people to wake up to that before the next general election and consider whether this is actually a political issue at all.

We can't really go back, but close and sensible co-operation with trading etc would make sense for everyone.

The Tories will never achieve this, as they always confect a phoney "war" with the EU, (them against us scenario). but Labour probably could.

Johnson was never a genuine Brexiteer, it was just a career move, but the whole thing has ended up a total mess, pleasing no one.?

martinthebandit

Ah, you mean ‘Brexit in name only’ we had two elections where the voters had the option to vote for parties that wanted that and that’s why we ended up with the current PM.

Do you really want the Labour Party to repeat that mistake, again?

Who 'means Brexit in name only'?

I suspect that now that voters are living the reality of Brexit and experiencing what a disaster it is, and what a disaster Johnson has been, there will be little appetite for voting tory again.

Closer alignment with what was our biggest market would be greeted with relief by many sections of the business community and they know now that the ukiptory party can't deliver what they need... Even with a change of leader the ukiptories couldn't deliver because with the ERG running the party they have no chance of getting anything but a Brexiteer as leader. Johnson has destroyed the tories.

Ah, you mean ‘Brexit in name only’ we had two elections where the voters had the option to vote for parties that wanted that and that’s why we ended up with the current PM.

Do you really want the Labour Party to repeat that mistake, again?

Starmer's problem is that he's trying to appeal to both sides of the trans debate.

And, that doesn't work.

I'm sure he does know what a woman "is" - and it doesn't ever involve a penis. ?

He needs to come out and say it.

He has with the EU - no going back there now. Rightly or wrongly.

But, overall, I think he's a fairly honest politician, he seems to respect women, and, on that basis, and the fact that this corrupt, sleazy government need to be gone, I'd vote for Labour again now.?

VS, what rights do trans people not have that don’t involve impacting negatively on females or removing rights that females previously held?

Hmm. I’ve re-read both posts, and think I have responded to what you said. You said that transpeople are going through what women did when we were trying to establish our rights.

I don’t see that - women didn’t have a lot of the rights that men did, but transpeople do. What rights do they not have?

I agree that identify politics is divisive though, and that Johnson et al are exploiting the situation. As I say, I’m hoping that something will happen to make it possible to decide how to vote when the time comes.

You wouldn't dd it's intrinsic bias drawn from your personal beliefs...

There are only no parallels between what I actually said and your answer

Sorry, but I think you are misrepresenting what is happening. This idea that transpeople are the most marginalised group in society just doesn't wash. They have huge numbers of employees being trained to follow policies to 'include' them, when they weren't excluded in the first place. They have politicians on the run (as seen on this thread), and so-called 'gender politics' have seeped into every area of life.

There are no obvious parallels that I can see with feminism, which has fought women not having the vote, not having rights to their own children, not having money of their own if married, being paid less legally, not being allowed in pubs and cafes in case they were soliciting, and so on (and on). Transpeople are not being denied any rights that are available to the rest of us. They are asking for extra rights (to access women's spaces, to enter sporting competitions that they are pretty much guaranteed to win, to have healthcare documentation changed so that they are 'included' and women are not, and so on (and on).

It's really not the same as women's fight, and to suggest that trans issues come close to things like racism or homophobia (where rights were different from the majority) is, frankly, offensive to those groups.

Regardless, before I go to bed, we are basically having a wedge driven through feminism and liberal(ism?) by a gleeful tory government over... genitals.

They must be laughing their socks off at us. They implemented the changes, some I agree with, some I would change, then wound us up and watched us go.

It's a bit gross is it not that a demographic currently facing horrific levels of hate crime, domestic violence and homelessness are being thoroughly demonised throughout the press...

Imagine how that felt when women were trying to establish our rights and faced public backlash.

Really it is a situation we have seen many times with many minority groups yet we soon forget, I guess especially when the minority group (women who fought for equality) becomes an equal share of the majority after a few decades.

I think you will get more chance of a sensible discussion under labour dd, or at least a sober one.

Perhaps reassurance that women retain all the same rights and some sensible solutions regarding safe spaces and sports would help.

Has anyone actually read Labour policies?

If this issue didn't run so deep I would agree with you, VS. It is not something that is at all easy - I can't not vote, and I have no idea for which party I can vote.

I am putting my fingers in my ears and going 'la la la' in the hope that 'something' will have happened before the election, so that the decision is made easier. Ideally, that will be the LP coming to its senses, but who knows?

Just vote Labour... this seems the only point of contention that is cropping up and realistically, I'd rather he knew what a democracy is than what a woman is..

Baring in mind I started a thread on what a woman is to me and the consensus was that it means thoroughly different things to every individual woman so... Probably no right answer anyway

It’s a difficult one isn’t it. Vote tactically and get ( hopefully) some kind of Labour/LibDem coalition or have a corrupt Conservative government in perpetuity…..

Well I don't know any women in real life who think like this.
The fact that you don't know anyone who is considering changing their voting habit proves absolutely nothing. The fact that there are people on here who are considering it, however, shows that it is happening.

Let's correct a few things
You may, of course, give an alternative POV, but that is not the same as 'correcting' things
It is not necessary to use a qualifier every time you mention a group of people, and unless there is an implication that the behaviour being described is universal there is no bias. Do you say 'flowers are growing in my garden', or do you point out that not every flower is there, but only some?

Some transwomen have said lesbians should be open to relationships with them.
Not all transwomen identify as lesbians (or are autogynephiles), so again, there is no need to qualify what I said - at no point did I imply that all transpeople were doing anything at all. The point, though, is that I wasn't talking about the ones who said that lesbians should be open to having sex with them, which you have shifted to. I was talking about the ones who insist that if a woman enjoys sex with women they should enjoy it with them, despite the fact that they have intact male bodies, and get very unpleasant when they are rejected. 'Suck my girl dick' sort of unpleasant. Not all transwomen do this, but how many have to do it before it is necessary to point out each time that they are a minority?

Some transwomen are involved in sport
And many are not. Is it really necessary to point that out? It is also true that not all transwomen cheat at sport - that goes without saying, too. The point is that those who do are at a huge advantage over women who have trained for years, and this sort of cheating can only be dealt with at a high level. When politicians refuse to recognise that a man saying he is a woman so that he can beat other women at swimming (or whatever) 'some' people find that unconscionable and feel reluctant to vote for them.

Some companies encourage people to declare their chosen pronoun, a bank has given employees the option of having their preferred pronoun on their badge.
More than one company has 'encouraged' people to declare pronouns. Are you really unaware of the trend in universities, local government and other 'captured' organisations? It is widespread in the public sector. Just because the Halifax Bank has made the tabloids doesn't make them the only ones to be doing this, whether on badges or in email.

A few people are getting all het up about it and posting negative and biased views about transwomen. The very nature of bias and discrimination is that you accuse a whole group of people of behaving in a certain way and don't recognise them as individuals.
Bias is shown when terms such as 'all het up' are used to minimise the feelings of those with whom the writer disagrees. That sort of bias is usually used by those who dislike women, as are many of the arguments of the 'allies', such as pretending that it is age that makes critics think as they do, without recognising that people think for themselves and come to their own conclusions by weighing up the arguments in their own way.
Language is important, which is why some people get annoyed when it is mangled - when 'mothers' become 'birth givers' and 'women' become 'people with vaginas' or 'people who menstruate'.

As M0nica says, there is an issue when 'some' (used here to mean a small proportion of the whole) are forcing their views onto 'most' (used here to mean the majority) people, so 'some' people will speak out about it.

I don't have much of an opinion on him but all the changes in regards to trans people, whether you agree or not, came in under the tories.

So to chastise him for simply trying to stay in line with changes to guidance and legislation seems a bit strange....

I thought we finally wanted a government who respected and were expected to live by the same rules as the rest of us?