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

It is common parlance to recommend something to someone by saying 'This is really good, you really should try it.' How anyone could think that puts pressure on the person spoken to to do something, totally defeats me.

It is just the ordinary use of the English language.

Crikey are we still rolling out the lesbians should try sex with men thing.

Galaxy

Crikey are we still rolling out the lesbians should try sex with men thing.

Oh good try Galaxy butI believe it was transwomen being discussed. Now you may believe transwomen are men, but obviously it wasn't men who were saying that, so by not using the appropriate term you are simply muddying the water. Unless you actually think that men are saying lesbians should try sex with them???
Shows how important using the correct term is doesn't it.

Transwomen are men. They are of the Male sex.

Men however they present have always tried to ask lesbians to have sex with them. It homophobic behaviour that's gone on forever.

Lurpak is now so expensive it has to be security tagged. So any minute now Labour is going to announce its big plan to deal with the rising cost of butter by offering a means-tested 5% off one-time voucher for the poorest 10% of households.

Labour has a 5-point plan to deal with the cost of butter

1. Less generous spreading
2. Reduce size of a bread slice
3. British Butter
4. Security
5. Grow the economy.

Now I really am lost.

paddyann54

the SNP dont want a coalition with labour ,its the hypocrisy of Sarwar saying no coalitions when his councils are joining forces with the tories who are supposed to be their polar opposites .Labour is dead here ,ONE MP in WM for now ,the tories haven't had a majority vote since 1955 that IS Nineteen Fifty Five Its the areas like the borders that still return a tory ,maybe the English inhabitants to blame?

You didn’t answer my previous question on the thread about this paddyann54. I asked you why your statements contradicted the latest poll results, are you able to respond?

I wondered what Mark Drakeford had to say about Keir Starmer’s statement, given that he was a remainer himself. Apologies for the length, but I think it’s a good summary of why Starmer has taken the approach he has:

‘The well has been poisoned in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, and continues to be poisoned by the fact that we have a Government that's prepared to breach international law and to override the agreements it itself signed up to and commended to people as a deal that they should vote for in a general election. The notion that you could simply rejoin something that has moved on, and where the invitation to rejoin does not exist, is not the basis for a sensible policy.

"What Keir Starmer set out yesterday was a different approach in which a Labour Government will renegotiate a very different relationship with our nearest and most important trading partners; a relationship based on respect—respect that is so sorely missing in the way that the current Government treats those partners—and a relationship that will achieve the closest possible frictionless trade for businesses across the United Kingdom and here in Wales. That is a realistic possibility. The idea that, in a debating-society sense, we should say that we should rejoin something that's no longer available for us to join does not seem to me to be the sort of policy that would actually make the difference we'd like to make."

a Labour Government will renegotiate a very different relationship with our nearest and most important trading partners; a relationship based on respect—respect that is so sorely missing in the way that the current Government treats those partners—and a relationship that will achieve the closest possible frictionless trade for businesses across the United Kingdom and here in Wales.

Completely reasonable and sensible. I want this.

This analysis from the Byline Times of an opinion poll on voter's attitudes to Brexit is interesting. It might suggest that Starmer has taken the wrong line.

OTOH Any sniff of even joining the Single Market and the Customs Union would have the right wing press utterly crucifying him. And they, I'm sure I don't have to remind you, have a much larger combined circulation than does the 'progressive' press.

bylinetimes.com/2022/07/04/why-brexit-is-no-longer-boris-johnsons-superpower/

WRT 'renegotiating' with the EU, they are somewhat familiar with Starmer as Labour had some sessions at Brussels after the referendum. (I have a feeling that Starmer has been to Brussels since being elected as LP leader, but I might be dreaming that). They must know that he is a completely different calibre of politician from Johnson.

Glorianny

I don't think being open to something is the same as insisting someone has sex with anyone or denigrating them because they haven't. It's simply saying you could try it. Just as someone else might say try sex with another woman you might like it .
Quite how that translates as it being a duty I don't know. Nor is it proscribing anything.
If I say "you should try Xs chocolate it's delicious." you don't have to do it.

My relationship with a brand of chocolate is quite different from my relationship with another human being.

If I casually try your recommended brand of chocolate and don't like it, there's no harm done. To either me or the chocolate.

If I instinctively do not want sex with a particular person - for whatever reason - but am persuaded by you that I should "try it" because I might "like it"... and I don't like it - then there's huge potential for distress for both parties.

Some lesbians have been persuaded and coerced into having sex with transwomen on the basis that it is transphobic not to do so.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

I don't think your comparison works.

MaizieD

WRT 'renegotiating' with the EU, they are somewhat familiar with Starmer as Labour had some sessions at Brussels after the referendum. (I have a feeling that Starmer has been to Brussels since being elected as LP leader, but I might be dreaming that). They must know that he is a completely different calibre of politician from Johnson.

They must know that he is a completely different calibre of politician from Johnson.

I think they do - because he is.

And let's face it - though her deal was a disaster - even Theresa May was of a different calibre...

MaizieD

This analysis from the Byline Times of an opinion poll on voter's attitudes to Brexit is interesting. It might suggest that Starmer has taken the wrong line.

OTOH Any sniff of even joining the Single Market and the Customs Union would have the right wing press utterly crucifying him. And they, I'm sure I don't have to remind you, have a much larger combined circulation than does the 'progressive' press.

bylinetimes.com/2022/07/04/why-brexit-is-no-longer-boris-johnsons-superpower/

I think this is a reasonable analysis of the Byline Times poll, Maizie.

In short: Brexit is no longer the binding force that it was in 2019 among Leave voters, whereas it is still a unifying issue among those who voted Remain.

The polling also shows that Mr Brexit, Boris Johnson, no longer draws political strength from his association with the project.

The analysis I quoted above does not lead me to think that Starmer has taken the wrong line.

He has to walk an extremely narrow line to assemble a disparate group of voters for the next election. That is not going to be easy. I think, because of the man he is, every step will be carefully thought out. I can see nothing to criticise at the moment.

We could not return immediately; as things stand I think he has made the right choice. I do understand why others may not agree.

I do agree Daisy Anne.

Galaxy

Men however they present have always tried to ask lesbians to have sex with them. It homophobic behaviour that's gone on forever.

I think you should qualify that with "some men" Galaxy my DS has a lot of lesbian friends, who wouldn't I think be friends if he had ever tried anything on with them.
Just as some transwomen will try it on with lesbians and some won't.
Alleging that all the people who belong to a certain category behave exactly the same is at the root of all bias and discrimination.

Dickens

Glorianny

I don't think being open to something is the same as insisting someone has sex with anyone or denigrating them because they haven't. It's simply saying you could try it. Just as someone else might say try sex with another woman you might like it .
Quite how that translates as it being a duty I don't know. Nor is it proscribing anything.
If I say "you should try Xs chocolate it's delicious." you don't have to do it.

My relationship with a brand of chocolate is quite different from my relationship with another human being.

If I casually try your recommended brand of chocolate and don't like it, there's no harm done. To either me or the chocolate.

If I instinctively do not want sex with a particular person - for whatever reason - but am persuaded by you that I should "try it" because I might "like it"... and I don't like it - then there's huge potential for distress for both parties.

Some lesbians have been persuaded and coerced into having sex with transwomen on the basis that it is transphobic not to do so.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385

I don't think your comparison works.

I think if you don't like it that's fine, tastes differ and someimes change.
Calling anyone transphobic because of a particular sexual leaning is of course entirely wrong. Coercing anyone to have sex with you is entirely wrong.
All sexual encounters surely have the potential to cause distress and harm. You go into them hoping they won't but there is never a guarantee whoever is involved.
I think my comparison works.

RichmondPark

*a Labour Government will renegotiate a very different relationship with our nearest and most important trading partners; a relationship based on respect—respect that is so sorely missing in the way that the current Government treats those partners—and a relationship that will achieve the closest possible frictionless trade for businesses across the United Kingdom and here in Wales.*

Completely reasonable and sensible. I want this.

a Labour Government will renegotiate a very different relationship with our nearest and most important trading partners; a relationship based on respect—respect that is so sorely missing in the way that the current Government treats those partners

... yes, absolutely this.

In the current (and foreseeable) economic and environmental 'climate', a looming trade war with the EU is the very last thing this country needs. Any PM or Party that had the best interests of the nation as their main focus rather than their own self-serving ambitions would not be hankering after such a 'war' simply to bolster its credentials with the rabid anti-EU sceptics, on whom it relies for its support. And would certainly not be blaming its "friends and neighbours" for its own lack of foresight, intelligence and 'savvy' in signing a deal that it insisted was 'oven ready'.

And to all those who're happy that Johnson got Brexit "done" - because that's why you voted for him and his party - it's not done. Signing the deal was the easy bit - living with the consequences is an entirely different kettle of fish and that's the bit we'll have to live with for decades to come. Some of you won't even be around to deal with the disadvantages. As for the advantages, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities himself thinks it might be somewhere in the region of 50 odd years before these manifest themselves to the point where the public at large benefit from them - so he's looking around to see if he can find some at an earlier date.

And in the meantime, the right wing cranks are coming out of the woodwork to suggest 'options' for 'growing our own' workers of the future. A tax on 'childless' couples is the latest wheeze (and that tax would include those who are unable to have children). Stalin would be proud, he instituted something similar in 1941, which I think you mentioned. Women who had less than 3 children were taxed on a monthly basis - presumably until they were coerced into having a third child. I await further 'recommendations' by esteemed demographers and think-tanks on the matter.

Starmer excellent at PMQs today

Johnson’s body language was very interesting. Sideways on, leaning on the bench, drinking water….

I had the radio not tv MayBee70, day more please

Taxing childlessness is offensive and probably breaches the Human Rights law.

However, I used to get tired of single people moaning about paying taxes, education etc. So I suggested a simple compromise. I would bear the burden of all the taxation for services used only for children. In there place they had to accept that as they got older more and more of the people in the world would be younger than them and someonee's child and be providing single people with everything from medical and social services, to pulling pints in pubs, driving buses, generaating electricity etc. not to mention financing everything, including their pensions.

Therefore they had to be prepared to go into old age with no tax payer generated income, live without essential services, only eat food they could grow themselves etc etc

Funny how quickly they changed their tune.

If the goverment want to increase the birthrate, the way forward is to make it easier to have children and bring them up, free child care, adequate financial support, to name but two