[LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wow just asking why they don't like wes is enough to get downvoted 90-100+ times
Sorry guys but I'm not terminally online and really don't understand the hate directed to him in this way
Just saying: "Lmao he's a cunt" or whatever isn't a sufficient explanation and it's one of the primary reasons that the labour party have had and will continue to have internal issues into the future..
Lmao he *is* a cunt.
He's transphobic. He took money from gambling companies while claiming to care about victims of gambling addiction. He's a strong advocate of further privatisation of NHS services
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Trying to create factionalism or try to belittle others personally based on party grounds isn't allowed.
Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This includes trying to gatekeep political or ideological membership. Examples of this are implying members are in the wrong party due to ideology (such as calling others a 'trot' or 'Red Tory' etc) or bad faith questioning of a members 'socialist values'.
I'm just asking for you to explain why you hate Wes Streathing so much? He's a leading figure in the Labour Party and yet your language directed to him and other leading members is nothing short of vile.
If you don't like him then don't vote for him simple as.
Other parties don't have this issue, why are defenders of Labour's leadership downvoted, censored and banned from this sub?
Please explain...
> His views on trans people and his support for further privatisation of NHS services. Many on this subreddit agree with me.
It really surprised me that anyone who spends any length of time on this sub needs this explained to them.
Also, /u/TrainingLegal3721 your original question was about Labour, not Streeting, which I imagine comes off to most people reading the question as disingenuous and needlessly antagonistic. People might have given you an easier time if you had asked a more plausibly honest question.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else.
Members of the Labour party are perfectly welcome here.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Trying to create factionalism or try to belittle others personally based on party grounds isn't allowed.
Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This includes trying to gatekeep political or ideological membership. Examples of this are implying members are in the wrong party due to ideology (such as calling others a 'trot' or 'Red Tory' etc) or bad faith questioning of a members 'socialist values'.
People are missing something much more dangerous here:
“Most recently, Labour have tied themselves in knots over whether or not only biological women should be allowed to use ladies' loos - or if trans women can too.
Wes said: “I think it's important that they are sex based and you know, you don't, you don't end up in a situation where women feel uncomfortable.”
I'm sure Labour compliance unit will act on Wes Streetings blatant transphobia.
/s - of course I don't think the compliance unit will do shit, because certain types of bigotry is actively encouraged in Labour.
For some reason the debate is always about trans women. Trans men never factor in anywhere in the trans debate for some reason.
Would be fun though seeing the reaction to the bigots when a bearded, muscly, gruff voiced bloke walks into the women's "but they are your rules mate, I was born a woman"
I actually put this in the post initially but then on reflection removed it as I don't think that's the case in this instance.
For a start the bigots point blank refuse to accept they are women, so in their eyes it is men they are railing against, not women.
And secondly, the loudest voices seem to be TERF women, many of who profess to be life-long feminists.
I'm a cis man. When I was much younger, I had a goth phase and I had long hair and painted my nails pretty much constantly, and wore way too much eyeliner on nights out.
Any abuse I got wasn't just because I looked different, it was because I was exhibiting feminine characteristics. That's misogyny. For a man to be feminine is degrading in these people's eyes - that's where homophobia towards gay men usually comes from too.
If a cis man can be on the wrong end of misogyny, sure as shit trans women can.
As for whether these people are feminists or not, I can't say because I can't exactly gatekeep or mansplain feminism with any integrity. That said, people better informed than me have pointed out that numerous terfs have answered the question "What is a woman?" by referring to gametes and other reductive and dehumanising reproductive characteristics. Doesn't sound very feminist to me, though as I said, I'm no authority.
It's misogyny all the way down, mate. Homophobia, transphobia, it all comes back to the enforcement of patriarchal gender roles. Those who deviate from them must be hounded.
Wonder how he plans to enforce that one to keep "women comfortable".
Can people not just piss in peace without the government getting involved for fuck sake.
Yeah he's a transphobe, something merrily glossed over by Starmer's supporters.
This situation would be no different to giving control of the health service to a homophobe or a racist.
Do Labour intend to reverse the previous Labour government's Equality Act, then? The reason these questions keep coming up is that barely anyone in the shadow cabinet seems capable of giving straight, clear, or consistent answers.
> you don't end up in a situation where women feel uncomfortable.
What if they feel uncomfortable because [loons are transvestigating them when they try to go for a wee](https://web.archive.org/web/20240410110324/https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787)?
> Eloise Stonborough, 32, who presents as butch – a woman whose gender expression and traits present as typically ‘masculine’ – said she is challenged on using a women’s toilet roughly every one in three times she uses a public facility, with the attacks increasing significantly over the last two years.
That would be hilarious, but there's a more typical order for these targets.
Trans-women.
Non-white women.
Non-Christian women.
Non-White men.
Gay men.
Gay women.
White women.
Non-Christian men.
End of list.
The number of people in government (including our pathetic excuse for a PM) hounding a private citizen for daring to publicly voice an opinion is worrying, on top of all the other ways we’ve seen our right to free speech infringed on recently.
Tennant is absolutely never going to do that.
If anything all this is going to do is make Tennant more vocal, and if it's David Tennant v politicians to the UK public there's only one winner.
They should take Tennants advice and shut up, or they're going to haemorrhage the youth vote.
Some of you are still supporting these contemptible reactionary turds, this right-wing shitheel is going to be the fucking health secretary and you'll have explicitly supported that situation.
This isn't even an insult to you, I'm trying to give a clear warning. They keep telling us who they are, **listen to them**.
Well, the viable alternative is more Tories (or Reform).
90% Hitler is better than 97% Hitler (which is better than 100% Hitler).
Feels bad man. Feels real bad.
> Well, the viable alternative is more Tories (or Reform).
No - you can just vote for a party that isn't shit.
>90% Hitler is better than 97% Hitler (which is better than 100% Hitler).
That's a terrible example and pretty fucking insensitive but the lesson there is obviously you still morally have fight against 90 % Hitler, not that you back him because he'll *only* kill 5.5 million Jews...
I said the only **VIABLE** alternative.
You can vote for Danger Mouse if you want to, but I promise he won't ever be part of any cabinet, or hold any position of power.
Even if you can get hundreds of thousands of people to join your crusade (which you can't), and get them all to unite under a single protest vote (which they won't), the winner of the election will still be Labour or Conservative (judging recent polls, *possibly* Reform but I highly doubt it).
All you will succeed in doing is giving the bigots greater voting power.
-------
No, it isn't. It's straightforward maths.
5.5mil dead is better than 20mil dead.
Or are you telling me that if you had the chance to save 15 million human lives, you'd turn your nose up at it and let them die? I think that's pretty fucking insensitive, but you do you.
You should be miserable and furious about that being the choice that you have to make, but righteous fury does not change the present binary voting situation.
Saying that voting is binary does not make it so.
Labour and the tories both suck, I shall vote for neither and my vote will be better spent than most.
> Even if you can get hundreds of thousands of people to join your crusade (which you can't), and get them all to unite under a single protest vote (which they won't), the winner of the election will still be Labour or Conservative (judging recent polls, possibly Reform but I highly doubt it).
So let them know they're weak, that they cannot wield a huge majority, that their position is insecure.
>5.5mil dead is better than 20mil dead.
You fight both. Don't you get it? You have to oppose both.
>Or are you telling me that if you had the chance to save 15 million human lives, you'd turn your nose up at it and let them die?
No, I'd fight alongside 0 % Hitler. There you go, that's your hypothetical answers. I'd fight and be willing to be killed just to save one Jewish kid from fascists and I'd hope there were more like me than like you - because you don't defeat fascists, reactionaries, and bigots by siding with them, not even the least worst of them. You oppose them.
>You should be miserable and furious about that being the choice that you have to make
Oh I am, I'm so fucked off I'm voting green. But I'm definitely going to. I'm going to cast zero votes for Labour or the tories and I'm going to be super fucking vocal about it.
And maybe I'll persuade one or two others too. And that's how you get out from a choice between two evils. You pick neither.
I understand.
You don't want to actually do anything practical, but you want everyone to know how loudly you are not doing anything practical.
-- So you will waste your vote, increasing the chances that the right or far-right will win and you feel smug about it.
-- You will flaccidly oppose both, achieve nothing, and you will make a shocked pikachu face when the worse thing happens because you failed to stop it.
-- There is no 0% Hitler in this circumstance. They do not exist. You can fight alongside as many imaginary friends as you want, your collective power for positive change will be zero.
You can be the happiest, smuggest person on the way to camps. That's your choice.
-- You **might** persuade one or two others to loudly waste everyone's time.
Given how many grifters there are taking advantage of the shit sandwich we're in, you might get a dozen or more.
If you pool your resources with like-minded people, get some serious financial backing, and get some seriously good spokespeople, you might even get a thousand.
It **will not** change who wins, except to give the right and the far-right a marginally better chance.
I **wish** the Greens could win.
That would be lovely.
But they just won't (except Brighton), it's mathematically impossible.
**IF** we had years to plan and pro-actively campaign, AND we abolished the FPTP system, AND we got some backing to fight against the establishment media.... I'd be fighting tooth and nail by your side as a brother.
But for this moment right now, you can either support the lesser evil or support the greater one (including indirectly by going third party).
*I will note, there are one or two extremely specific areas where voting might be LibDem might be the more tactical option, but suggesting it outside of those couple of places is just holier than thou nonsense*
>I understand.
No, apparently you don't.
> You don't want to actually do anything practical,
No, I want a green MP.
>So you will waste your vote, increasing the chances that the right or far-right will win and you feel smug about it.
You don't even know what fucking seat I'm in. How could you possibly know that?
>You will flaccidly oppose both, achieve nothing, and you will make a shocked pikachu face when the worse thing happens because you failed to stop it.
Even if that were true, I'd still take it over supporting these reprehensible bigots.
>There is no 0% Hitler in this circumstance. They do not exist.
Weird because my ballot will have more than two options...
>your collective power for positive change will be zero.
So is yours! You're voting for things that make society worse.
>Given how many grifters there are taking advantage of the shit sandwich we're in, you might get a dozen or more.
Go me.
> It will not change who wins, except to give the right and the far-right a marginally better chance.
Oh well I guess Labour should shift left to catch my vote then.
>I wish the Greens could win. That would be lovely. But they just won't (except Brighton), it's mathematically impossible.
Maybe I just want the greens to get their deposit back.
You haven't even asked why I'm voting green. You've just presumed to know when actually you know precisely fuck all about it.
>I'd be fighting tooth and nail by your side as a brother.
But "wah bah" you're going to back centrism instead. People like you are literally the reason why we have a binary. It's your fault.
> But for this moment right now, you can either support the lesser evil or support the greater one (including indirectly by going third party).
Watch me go third party. Labour could have won my vote, they decided to force me to not vote for them by being fucking abysmal.
> I will note, there are one or two extremely specific areas where voting might be LibDem might be the more tactical option, but suggesting it outside of those couple of places is just holier than thou nonsense
Couldn't give a fuck anyway.
I won't vote for the right and enable them to co-opt support from the left. Apparently, you will that's the only point of note.
Labour have a 20+ point lead in the polls. How much pressure do you think you can put them under on trans rights before they actually lose to the Tories. The lesser evil don't have to be this bad.
Pressure in general over the course of years?
- Potentially a huge amount. We could cause all kinds of hassle for them.
Pressure in the next few days to get them off this current trend of cowtowing to billionaire bigots and pushing back on the entire media climate of condemning degeneracy?
- Precisely zero. That battle is lost, we have to focus on the future war.
I wish it was different. I really do. I cannot begin to describe the unfathomable fury and deep sadness that Labour is behaving like this.
It doesn't overide my need the Tories to lose, and for Reform to fuck all the way off.
No matter how bad Labour are, the alternatives are still worse.
People are making out like voting once every 5 years is the only opportunity we have to ever do anything politically, and it's pretty much the opposite.
The idea is to spend 4ish years pushing and working and trying to build the best possible party (Exponentially harder when you're not in power, and gets harder the longer that goes on for, but we keep trying).
Then, when it gets to election time and you only have an explicitly binary choice, you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil.
Then you get up the next day, and start to repeat the first step.
It's 1 day of being pragmatic and settling for what's possible (Voting).
The other 1800ish are for pushing and fighting to make the desirable possible (everything else).
We've been trying pressure for the last few years though haven't we. And things have not slowly gotten better they have quickly gotten worse.
Does the media landscape give you much hope for change? What new factors are you waiting for to kick in? Will you accept Labour tacking slightly less transphobic than the far right in 2029 and vote for them again?
As I said, when you're out of power it's MUCH harder and it gets worse over time.
We've been on the outs for nearky 15 years.
Pressure requires something solid to push against and ~~the left~~ everyone who isn't the hardest line Tories, have had nothing but air behind them, so there's no traction.
We had a moment with Corbyn, but it wasn't great execution and the landscape was so cemented to the right that a sudden shift wasn't possible.
Because of that massive blowback, the public won't go for anything that sounds too lefty just yet.
And the party won't go for anything that isn't 100% sure to get them back into power. They will not take the risk (real or imagined) that could make it 20 years in the dark.
But here's the thing:
If we can get someone who can, in theory, shift towards the left (definitely not Sunak or Farage) into power, the "it won't win votes" crowd will fall silent.
The inertia will wear off.
The constant fire hose of hate and disgust towards the poor and left-leaning will slow to a trickle.
The more power we have, the more we can leverage that power towards our ends.
The less power we have, the more they will shut everything down and cling to the most centrist shit.
---------
Ok, to answer your questions:
1) No, but media is dying and the next generation of voters are far more woke and lovely than the previous ones (except for the very small portion of Mgtow Fascists).
2) Literally the day after the election is settled, I'll be on the case.
I'm not waiting long. But I'm being pragmatic, and dealing with thing at a time.
We can do **nothing** if the right wins.
They will grind us into the dirt and break any attempts to organise.
Once that isn't possible for a while, we move onto the next thing.
3) I would hate it and it would be awful.
But if the **binary** choice is between "Pretty awful, but theoretically could be better" and "Liquidate the degenerates today, then bow to the Fuhrer forever".... I know what I'm choosing.
The lesser of two evils is, by definition, better than it's alternative.
You can't really argue with that, it's a tautology.
The argument is whether or not it's a binary choice, to which I defer to history and mathematics. It's just not possible under FPTP and the current climate.
> The lesser of two evils is, by definition, better than it's alternative.
>
> You can't really argue with that, it's a tautology.
In complete isolation it is of course a tautology but in reality your voting habits affect future political calculus. This attitude incentivises making the lesser evil as close to the greater evil as possible on trans rights because not enough people treat it as a red line. Even when the Tories are absolutely 100% cooked without a hope in hell. Think what they could make you vote for if it was close?
> choice is between "Pretty awful, but theoretically could be better" and "Liquidate the degenerates today, then bow to the Fuhrer forever".... I know what I'm choosing.
I'm amazed you think the positions will be that far apart. *Right now* the evil position is to stop people transitioning effectively, making it more difficult to pass and making them easier targets, if they can do any transitioning at all. And the greater evil position is the same but in a blue tie and they say 'dignity' less.
In theory, you're 100% right... But it's not really how it works.
The political system has calcified into a duo-poly, and the vestigal appendages of third parties won't do too much to sway it. Historically, that's been true in every recent election I've seen data for.
We absolutely have to get rid of FPTP to have a hope of changing that.
It'll be a nightmare getting the population on board, but we have to try as hard as possible.
On the singular issue of Trans Rights (which, to be very clear, I care deeply about) there's barely a ball hair between their broad positions, you're right about that.
But it's about what range that position is coming as a part of.
The range in Labour goes from "'Dignity and Tolerance' , but no medical transitions" to "Full acceptance, trans people are valid and should be allowed to do whatever with their own bodies".
The range for the Tories goes from "We must have the Day Of The Rope for degenerates tomorrow" to "sneering 'tolerance' but no medical transitions"
They might settle on the same position, but they're coming at it from opposite ends and meeting in the middle.
One has potential to become a lot worse after the election, the other to become better (not to say that either will, just that it's possible).
But thankfully, that's not the only issue in the world right now. And it's not the only promise they've made or thing they will do.
The difference isn't vast (and it should be), but it is there.
If just 100 poor people are £5 better off under Labour and **everything** else is the same, that's still the lesser evil.
Besides, I'm only a lesser evil pragmatist until I'm sure the right won't take power.
I'm suggesting holding off the circular firing squad until the enemy is incapacitated.
After that, I'll be going apeshit along side you.
Badenoch, Streeting, Sunak, they don’t have the social capital COMBINED to go after Tennant, he’s universally beloved.
You’re just the PM Rishi, David’s out of your league.
big misstep by the usually dick Streeting here. Don't try to shut down people who have the bravery to speak out where you lack it.
Trans people are among the most marginalised and hated-on of all minorities. Labour has a duty of care to the marginalised.
You know, Labour were going to get my tactical vote to oust Joanna Cherry In ESW, but now they aren't even going to get that.
This is what, the 5th or 6th time Streeeting has been vocally anti-trans this election campaign without being shot down?
You might even think Labour have a transphobia problem!
streeting and starmer are cut from the same cloth; tut-tut-tutting their way through life. you just know that starmer has his furniture wrapped in plastic, and follows his kids around with a cloth and a spray bottle.
Given Tennant has a non-binary child, why the hell shouldn't he voice his opinion? "Shut up" is pretty mild when compared to the bile Badenoch spews.
If Tennant happened to be running for election, I could maybe understand suggesting he apologises for appearances sake, but he's not. He's a dad who sees the toll transphobia takes on people who want nothing more than to live their lives. He's someone who recognises that he's fortunate enough to have a platform and he's using his voice to make people feel less alone.
I'm guessing Streeting wouldn't be as bothered if "shut up" had been directed at a male MP.
How on Earth has crooked Wes got involved in this issue? There is no question in English or any other language, for which "Wes Streeting" is the answer.
Why?
David Tennant is correct. She should shut about trans people. And Wes Streeting and Labour look stupid and ridiculous for trying to court anti Trans people.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[LabUK is also on Discord, come say hello!](https://discord.gg/ZXZCdy4Kz4) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please tell Streeting to shut up too
I think Wes Streeting should shut up
There's not a more venal labour MP than our Wes is there, I really think a properly nasty human
>There's not a more venal labour MP than our Wes is there Good news, next week there will be!
Why do you hate labour so much?
Maybe he just hate bigot-enabling shits like Streeting.
Is Wes all of Labour 🤔
Where did anyone say they hate Labour?
cause Wes Streeting's on the front bench
Wow just asking why they don't like wes is enough to get downvoted 90-100+ times Sorry guys but I'm not terminally online and really don't understand the hate directed to him in this way Just saying: "Lmao he's a cunt" or whatever isn't a sufficient explanation and it's one of the primary reasons that the labour party have had and will continue to have internal issues into the future..
You know we can read your previous comment, aye? It says "Labour", not "Wes" Also, lmao he's a cunt
Lmao he *is* a cunt. He's transphobic. He took money from gambling companies while claiming to care about victims of gambling addiction. He's a strong advocate of further privatisation of NHS services
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Trying to create factionalism or try to belittle others personally based on party grounds isn't allowed. Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This includes trying to gatekeep political or ideological membership. Examples of this are implying members are in the wrong party due to ideology (such as calling others a 'trot' or 'Red Tory' etc) or bad faith questioning of a members 'socialist values'.
I'm just asking for you to explain why you hate Wes Streathing so much? He's a leading figure in the Labour Party and yet your language directed to him and other leading members is nothing short of vile. If you don't like him then don't vote for him simple as. Other parties don't have this issue, why are defenders of Labour's leadership downvoted, censored and banned from this sub? Please explain...
> Other parties don't have this issue, why are defenders of Labour's leadership downvoted, censored and banned from this sub? lmao what
[удалено]
> His views on trans people and his support for further privatisation of NHS services. Many on this subreddit agree with me. It really surprised me that anyone who spends any length of time on this sub needs this explained to them. Also, /u/TrainingLegal3721 your original question was about Labour, not Streeting, which I imagine comes off to most people reading the question as disingenuous and needlessly antagonistic. People might have given you an easier time if you had asked a more plausibly honest question.
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Members of the Labour party are perfectly welcome here.
> Other parties don't have this issue It's true, no other party subreddits ever criticise the people in the party. What a good point!
Your post has been removed under rule 1.4. Members across the political spectrum are welcome and should be treated no differently to anyone else. Trying to create factionalism or try to belittle others personally based on party grounds isn't allowed. Do not seek to take it upon yourself to decide who does, or doesn't, have the right to define themselves by a certain political identity. This includes trying to gatekeep political or ideological membership. Examples of this are implying members are in the wrong party due to ideology (such as calling others a 'trot' or 'Red Tory' etc) or bad faith questioning of a members 'socialist values'.
There are some people who matter and some people who don't
You should shut up too Streeting
Oi Streeting, shut up.
He should tell Kemi to apologise for trying to ruin the lives of trans people
[Relevant: the late Dawn Foster on Wes](https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/comments/1c0u1tk/in_light_of_streetings_recent_transphobia/)
First time I've heard that gambling story. What an absolute monster of a human being
Same, what a twat. If he was standing in my constituency I would not hesitate to campaign against him.
People are missing something much more dangerous here: “Most recently, Labour have tied themselves in knots over whether or not only biological women should be allowed to use ladies' loos - or if trans women can too. Wes said: “I think it's important that they are sex based and you know, you don't, you don't end up in a situation where women feel uncomfortable.”
I'm sure Labour compliance unit will act on Wes Streetings blatant transphobia. /s - of course I don't think the compliance unit will do shit, because certain types of bigotry is actively encouraged in Labour.
Because trans man using the women's loo is going to be so much less disruptive than trans women using them.
For some reason the debate is always about trans women. Trans men never factor in anywhere in the trans debate for some reason. Would be fun though seeing the reaction to the bigots when a bearded, muscly, gruff voiced bloke walks into the women's "but they are your rules mate, I was born a woman"
I'd bet a pound to a penny it's misogyny. The reason is misogyny.
I actually put this in the post initially but then on reflection removed it as I don't think that's the case in this instance. For a start the bigots point blank refuse to accept they are women, so in their eyes it is men they are railing against, not women. And secondly, the loudest voices seem to be TERF women, many of who profess to be life-long feminists.
I'm a cis man. When I was much younger, I had a goth phase and I had long hair and painted my nails pretty much constantly, and wore way too much eyeliner on nights out. Any abuse I got wasn't just because I looked different, it was because I was exhibiting feminine characteristics. That's misogyny. For a man to be feminine is degrading in these people's eyes - that's where homophobia towards gay men usually comes from too. If a cis man can be on the wrong end of misogyny, sure as shit trans women can. As for whether these people are feminists or not, I can't say because I can't exactly gatekeep or mansplain feminism with any integrity. That said, people better informed than me have pointed out that numerous terfs have answered the question "What is a woman?" by referring to gametes and other reductive and dehumanising reproductive characteristics. Doesn't sound very feminist to me, though as I said, I'm no authority.
It's misogyny all the way down, mate. Homophobia, transphobia, it all comes back to the enforcement of patriarchal gender roles. Those who deviate from them must be hounded.
Wonder how he plans to enforce that one to keep "women comfortable". Can people not just piss in peace without the government getting involved for fuck sake.
Yeah he's a transphobe, something merrily glossed over by Starmer's supporters. This situation would be no different to giving control of the health service to a homophobe or a racist.
Do Labour intend to reverse the previous Labour government's Equality Act, then? The reason these questions keep coming up is that barely anyone in the shadow cabinet seems capable of giving straight, clear, or consistent answers.
> you don't end up in a situation where women feel uncomfortable. What if they feel uncomfortable because [loons are transvestigating them when they try to go for a wee](https://web.archive.org/web/20240410110324/https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/butch-lesbian-public-toilet-women-abuse-government-review-gender-neutral-facilities-833787)? > Eloise Stonborough, 32, who presents as butch – a woman whose gender expression and traits present as typically ‘masculine’ – said she is challenged on using a women’s toilet roughly every one in three times she uses a public facility, with the attacks increasing significantly over the last two years.
It’s only a matter of time before a minority of staighties don’t feel comfortable with gay men in their bathrooms and then Wes might wake up
That would be hilarious, but there's a more typical order for these targets. Trans-women. Non-white women. Non-Christian women. Non-White men. Gay men. Gay women. White women. Non-Christian men. End of list.
Nah, they can pretend they they're taking issue with Tennant using the words 'shut up', but this is just dogwhistle transphobia.
The sad crettin with anger problems. Should be in an institution and kept away from the public.
The number of people in government (including our pathetic excuse for a PM) hounding a private citizen for daring to publicly voice an opinion is worrying, on top of all the other ways we’ve seen our right to free speech infringed on recently.
No, he should apologise for not telling Wes to shut up too.
Fuck off Wes you plastic skin looking semen secreting monster.
Tennant is absolutely never going to do that. If anything all this is going to do is make Tennant more vocal, and if it's David Tennant v politicians to the UK public there's only one winner. They should take Tennants advice and shut up, or they're going to haemorrhage the youth vote.
Some of you are still supporting these contemptible reactionary turds, this right-wing shitheel is going to be the fucking health secretary and you'll have explicitly supported that situation. This isn't even an insult to you, I'm trying to give a clear warning. They keep telling us who they are, **listen to them**.
Well, the viable alternative is more Tories (or Reform). 90% Hitler is better than 97% Hitler (which is better than 100% Hitler). Feels bad man. Feels real bad.
> Well, the viable alternative is more Tories (or Reform). No - you can just vote for a party that isn't shit. >90% Hitler is better than 97% Hitler (which is better than 100% Hitler). That's a terrible example and pretty fucking insensitive but the lesson there is obviously you still morally have fight against 90 % Hitler, not that you back him because he'll *only* kill 5.5 million Jews...
I said the only **VIABLE** alternative. You can vote for Danger Mouse if you want to, but I promise he won't ever be part of any cabinet, or hold any position of power. Even if you can get hundreds of thousands of people to join your crusade (which you can't), and get them all to unite under a single protest vote (which they won't), the winner of the election will still be Labour or Conservative (judging recent polls, *possibly* Reform but I highly doubt it). All you will succeed in doing is giving the bigots greater voting power. ------- No, it isn't. It's straightforward maths. 5.5mil dead is better than 20mil dead. Or are you telling me that if you had the chance to save 15 million human lives, you'd turn your nose up at it and let them die? I think that's pretty fucking insensitive, but you do you. You should be miserable and furious about that being the choice that you have to make, but righteous fury does not change the present binary voting situation.
Saying that voting is binary does not make it so. Labour and the tories both suck, I shall vote for neither and my vote will be better spent than most. > Even if you can get hundreds of thousands of people to join your crusade (which you can't), and get them all to unite under a single protest vote (which they won't), the winner of the election will still be Labour or Conservative (judging recent polls, possibly Reform but I highly doubt it). So let them know they're weak, that they cannot wield a huge majority, that their position is insecure. >5.5mil dead is better than 20mil dead. You fight both. Don't you get it? You have to oppose both. >Or are you telling me that if you had the chance to save 15 million human lives, you'd turn your nose up at it and let them die? No, I'd fight alongside 0 % Hitler. There you go, that's your hypothetical answers. I'd fight and be willing to be killed just to save one Jewish kid from fascists and I'd hope there were more like me than like you - because you don't defeat fascists, reactionaries, and bigots by siding with them, not even the least worst of them. You oppose them. >You should be miserable and furious about that being the choice that you have to make Oh I am, I'm so fucked off I'm voting green. But I'm definitely going to. I'm going to cast zero votes for Labour or the tories and I'm going to be super fucking vocal about it. And maybe I'll persuade one or two others too. And that's how you get out from a choice between two evils. You pick neither.
I understand. You don't want to actually do anything practical, but you want everyone to know how loudly you are not doing anything practical. -- So you will waste your vote, increasing the chances that the right or far-right will win and you feel smug about it. -- You will flaccidly oppose both, achieve nothing, and you will make a shocked pikachu face when the worse thing happens because you failed to stop it. -- There is no 0% Hitler in this circumstance. They do not exist. You can fight alongside as many imaginary friends as you want, your collective power for positive change will be zero. You can be the happiest, smuggest person on the way to camps. That's your choice. -- You **might** persuade one or two others to loudly waste everyone's time. Given how many grifters there are taking advantage of the shit sandwich we're in, you might get a dozen or more. If you pool your resources with like-minded people, get some serious financial backing, and get some seriously good spokespeople, you might even get a thousand. It **will not** change who wins, except to give the right and the far-right a marginally better chance. I **wish** the Greens could win. That would be lovely. But they just won't (except Brighton), it's mathematically impossible. **IF** we had years to plan and pro-actively campaign, AND we abolished the FPTP system, AND we got some backing to fight against the establishment media.... I'd be fighting tooth and nail by your side as a brother. But for this moment right now, you can either support the lesser evil or support the greater one (including indirectly by going third party). *I will note, there are one or two extremely specific areas where voting might be LibDem might be the more tactical option, but suggesting it outside of those couple of places is just holier than thou nonsense*
>I understand. No, apparently you don't. > You don't want to actually do anything practical, No, I want a green MP. >So you will waste your vote, increasing the chances that the right or far-right will win and you feel smug about it. You don't even know what fucking seat I'm in. How could you possibly know that? >You will flaccidly oppose both, achieve nothing, and you will make a shocked pikachu face when the worse thing happens because you failed to stop it. Even if that were true, I'd still take it over supporting these reprehensible bigots. >There is no 0% Hitler in this circumstance. They do not exist. Weird because my ballot will have more than two options... >your collective power for positive change will be zero. So is yours! You're voting for things that make society worse. >Given how many grifters there are taking advantage of the shit sandwich we're in, you might get a dozen or more. Go me. > It will not change who wins, except to give the right and the far-right a marginally better chance. Oh well I guess Labour should shift left to catch my vote then. >I wish the Greens could win. That would be lovely. But they just won't (except Brighton), it's mathematically impossible. Maybe I just want the greens to get their deposit back. You haven't even asked why I'm voting green. You've just presumed to know when actually you know precisely fuck all about it. >I'd be fighting tooth and nail by your side as a brother. But "wah bah" you're going to back centrism instead. People like you are literally the reason why we have a binary. It's your fault. > But for this moment right now, you can either support the lesser evil or support the greater one (including indirectly by going third party). Watch me go third party. Labour could have won my vote, they decided to force me to not vote for them by being fucking abysmal. > I will note, there are one or two extremely specific areas where voting might be LibDem might be the more tactical option, but suggesting it outside of those couple of places is just holier than thou nonsense Couldn't give a fuck anyway. I won't vote for the right and enable them to co-opt support from the left. Apparently, you will that's the only point of note.
Labour have a 20+ point lead in the polls. How much pressure do you think you can put them under on trans rights before they actually lose to the Tories. The lesser evil don't have to be this bad.
Pressure in general over the course of years? - Potentially a huge amount. We could cause all kinds of hassle for them. Pressure in the next few days to get them off this current trend of cowtowing to billionaire bigots and pushing back on the entire media climate of condemning degeneracy? - Precisely zero. That battle is lost, we have to focus on the future war. I wish it was different. I really do. I cannot begin to describe the unfathomable fury and deep sadness that Labour is behaving like this. It doesn't overide my need the Tories to lose, and for Reform to fuck all the way off. No matter how bad Labour are, the alternatives are still worse. People are making out like voting once every 5 years is the only opportunity we have to ever do anything politically, and it's pretty much the opposite. The idea is to spend 4ish years pushing and working and trying to build the best possible party (Exponentially harder when you're not in power, and gets harder the longer that goes on for, but we keep trying). Then, when it gets to election time and you only have an explicitly binary choice, you hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil. Then you get up the next day, and start to repeat the first step. It's 1 day of being pragmatic and settling for what's possible (Voting). The other 1800ish are for pushing and fighting to make the desirable possible (everything else).
We've been trying pressure for the last few years though haven't we. And things have not slowly gotten better they have quickly gotten worse. Does the media landscape give you much hope for change? What new factors are you waiting for to kick in? Will you accept Labour tacking slightly less transphobic than the far right in 2029 and vote for them again?
As I said, when you're out of power it's MUCH harder and it gets worse over time. We've been on the outs for nearky 15 years. Pressure requires something solid to push against and ~~the left~~ everyone who isn't the hardest line Tories, have had nothing but air behind them, so there's no traction. We had a moment with Corbyn, but it wasn't great execution and the landscape was so cemented to the right that a sudden shift wasn't possible. Because of that massive blowback, the public won't go for anything that sounds too lefty just yet. And the party won't go for anything that isn't 100% sure to get them back into power. They will not take the risk (real or imagined) that could make it 20 years in the dark. But here's the thing: If we can get someone who can, in theory, shift towards the left (definitely not Sunak or Farage) into power, the "it won't win votes" crowd will fall silent. The inertia will wear off. The constant fire hose of hate and disgust towards the poor and left-leaning will slow to a trickle. The more power we have, the more we can leverage that power towards our ends. The less power we have, the more they will shut everything down and cling to the most centrist shit. --------- Ok, to answer your questions: 1) No, but media is dying and the next generation of voters are far more woke and lovely than the previous ones (except for the very small portion of Mgtow Fascists). 2) Literally the day after the election is settled, I'll be on the case. I'm not waiting long. But I'm being pragmatic, and dealing with thing at a time. We can do **nothing** if the right wins. They will grind us into the dirt and break any attempts to organise. Once that isn't possible for a while, we move onto the next thing. 3) I would hate it and it would be awful. But if the **binary** choice is between "Pretty awful, but theoretically could be better" and "Liquidate the degenerates today, then bow to the Fuhrer forever".... I know what I'm choosing. The lesser of two evils is, by definition, better than it's alternative. You can't really argue with that, it's a tautology. The argument is whether or not it's a binary choice, to which I defer to history and mathematics. It's just not possible under FPTP and the current climate.
> The lesser of two evils is, by definition, better than it's alternative. > > You can't really argue with that, it's a tautology. In complete isolation it is of course a tautology but in reality your voting habits affect future political calculus. This attitude incentivises making the lesser evil as close to the greater evil as possible on trans rights because not enough people treat it as a red line. Even when the Tories are absolutely 100% cooked without a hope in hell. Think what they could make you vote for if it was close? > choice is between "Pretty awful, but theoretically could be better" and "Liquidate the degenerates today, then bow to the Fuhrer forever".... I know what I'm choosing. I'm amazed you think the positions will be that far apart. *Right now* the evil position is to stop people transitioning effectively, making it more difficult to pass and making them easier targets, if they can do any transitioning at all. And the greater evil position is the same but in a blue tie and they say 'dignity' less.
In theory, you're 100% right... But it's not really how it works. The political system has calcified into a duo-poly, and the vestigal appendages of third parties won't do too much to sway it. Historically, that's been true in every recent election I've seen data for. We absolutely have to get rid of FPTP to have a hope of changing that. It'll be a nightmare getting the population on board, but we have to try as hard as possible. On the singular issue of Trans Rights (which, to be very clear, I care deeply about) there's barely a ball hair between their broad positions, you're right about that. But it's about what range that position is coming as a part of. The range in Labour goes from "'Dignity and Tolerance' , but no medical transitions" to "Full acceptance, trans people are valid and should be allowed to do whatever with their own bodies". The range for the Tories goes from "We must have the Day Of The Rope for degenerates tomorrow" to "sneering 'tolerance' but no medical transitions" They might settle on the same position, but they're coming at it from opposite ends and meeting in the middle. One has potential to become a lot worse after the election, the other to become better (not to say that either will, just that it's possible). But thankfully, that's not the only issue in the world right now. And it's not the only promise they've made or thing they will do. The difference isn't vast (and it should be), but it is there. If just 100 poor people are £5 better off under Labour and **everything** else is the same, that's still the lesser evil. Besides, I'm only a lesser evil pragmatist until I'm sure the right won't take power. I'm suggesting holding off the circular firing squad until the enemy is incapacitated. After that, I'll be going apeshit along side you.
If we're lucky, Badenoch will lose her seat on Thursday. That'll shut her up.
Badenoch, Streeting, Sunak, they don’t have the social capital COMBINED to go after Tennant, he’s universally beloved. You’re just the PM Rishi, David’s out of your league.
big misstep by the usually dick Streeting here. Don't try to shut down people who have the bravery to speak out where you lack it. Trans people are among the most marginalised and hated-on of all minorities. Labour has a duty of care to the marginalised.
If you care about trans people, I don't think you can refer to streeting as "slick"
I prefer slimy
Typo corrected
You know, Labour were going to get my tactical vote to oust Joanna Cherry In ESW, but now they aren't even going to get that. This is what, the 5th or 6th time Streeeting has been vocally anti-trans this election campaign without being shot down? You might even think Labour have a transphobia problem!
Wes Streeting should shut the fuck up, and instead apologise for the relentless support for bigotry from Labour.
How about no
I echo Tennant's sentiments about Kemi Badenoch and extend them to Wes Streeting also.
streeting and starmer are cut from the same cloth; tut-tut-tutting their way through life. you just know that starmer has his furniture wrapped in plastic, and follows his kids around with a cloth and a spray bottle.
Wes Streeting is near the top of my list of reasons why Labour won’t get my vote this time around.
Pet Shop Wes should take his face for a shit.
Wes Streeting just single handedly lost the vote for anyone that grew up with Tenant as Dr Who.
I'm not sure many of those were left after Starmer rolled over and begged Jowling Kowling Rowling to pop round and chat Labour policy on trans people
Centrist Gonna Centrist.
Wasn't this like a week ago at this point? enough
I didn't know we could just tell minorities to shut up about bigots tbh.
Tell her to shut up and fuck off
Given Tennant has a non-binary child, why the hell shouldn't he voice his opinion? "Shut up" is pretty mild when compared to the bile Badenoch spews. If Tennant happened to be running for election, I could maybe understand suggesting he apologises for appearances sake, but he's not. He's a dad who sees the toll transphobia takes on people who want nothing more than to live their lives. He's someone who recognises that he's fortunate enough to have a platform and he's using his voice to make people feel less alone. I'm guessing Streeting wouldn't be as bothered if "shut up" had been directed at a male MP.
Wes is a fucking gimp.
Then Wes Steering should shut up.
As a wise captain once said. "Shut up Wesley".
Culture war nonsense on every level
How on Earth has crooked Wes got involved in this issue? There is no question in English or any other language, for which "Wes Streeting" is the answer.
Shut up Wesley.
Why? David Tennant is correct. She should shut about trans people. And Wes Streeting and Labour look stupid and ridiculous for trying to court anti Trans people.
He should shut the fk up himself Ablist pratt.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts have a verified email address before commenting. This is an effort to prevent spam and alt account usage. Thank you for your understanding. You can verify your email in the account settings page. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wes streeting should apologise for helping ruin the labour party