Zompist Bboard Again

alice wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:21 pm Yebbut St*rm*r was going to take away disabled people's benefits and hasn't nationalised the railways yet.

He has created Great British Energy and reduced NHS waiting times, while increasing government investment in public services, though.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Fri Aug 22, 2025 8:21 am

alice wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:21 pm Yebbut St*rm*r was going to take away disabled people's benefits and hasn't nationalised the railways yet.

He has created Great British Energy and reduced NHS waiting times, while increasing government investment in public services, though.

Yeah but he hasn't brought about teh Revolución yet!

A thought which occurred to me. Zompist remarked that the Republicans behave and talk like it's still either 1968 or 1980; what might be the equivalent years for the British right wing? I'd tentatively suggest sometime around 1960 or 1978.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 12:56 pm As much as leftists perennially like to do so, it is a mistake to conflate centrists with rightists. Yes, they may not bring the Revolution any closer, but when the choice is between a centrist and a rightist, the choice is clear, even if it is unsatisfying.

Is Starmer really centrist?

He blames trans people for dividing the "left". Being trans is now effectively illegal in the UK.

He said Israel has the right to cut off Palestine's food supply.

He also seems to be economically conservative.

What are some leftist positions he holds?

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm
Is Starmer really centrist?

He blames trans people for dividing the "left". Being trans is now effectively illegal in the UK.

He said Israel has the right to cut off Palestine's food supply.

He also seems to be economically conservative.

What are some leftist positions he holds?

The 'center' is defined relatively to other parties; he is to the right of Farage and the Tories (I think)

To rephrase Travis' point (which I agree with), I think leftists tend to underestimate how far right policies can get.

The thing is that the far right can get really, really right-wing; even if centrist policies are right-wing in practice. Remember when the Tories wanted to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda? Have we forgotten that? See, when we leftists see policies from centrists we don't like, some of us conveniently forget how bad explicit rightists can get.

To be honest, I have not been keeping track of how right-wing Keir Starmer is, even though from doing some quick reading-up he is probably one of the furthest to the right of the Labour PM's. But I do remember how bad the Tories were before Labour was elected most recently. We all may hate Starmer, but do we want to go back to the Tories? (Remember this is FPTP for the record.)

Starmer is a kind of Schrodinger's Politician: he is simultaneously an unreconstructed Communist and indistinguishable from what remains of the Conservative party. Exactly which is only resolved when you ask someone.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 10:40 pm Being trans is now effectively illegal in the UK.

Source? I'd be very surprised if the trans people I know¹ had become “effectively illegal”.

---

About Starmer generally, who knows what he really thinks; everything he does is in response to the right wing press getting angry at something and then choosing semi-random policies to U-turn on. I don't think that counts as left, but it's ntot he prototypical centrist either.

---

For completeness, I should note that Zack Polanski² has won the Green Party⁴ leadership election. About the only things I know about him is that he is a) more shouty than your typical Green b) the "left wing" candidate⁵ and c) was in a story in the Sun⁶ in the 2010s for allegedly offering to enlarge an undercover reporter's breasts via hypotherapy. This means the Green membership has gone back to the typical habit of ensuring the leader(s) aren't MPs⁷.

¹ Admittedly not that well
² It turns out a single candidate can run for the Green leadership, rather than a gender balanced duo; it's just that all leaders so far have been joint tickets
⁴ of England and Wales. The Scottish & Northern Irish parties are separate
⁵ Pretty much no difference in policy, but in emphasis, so take this with a grain of salt
⁶ Right Wing Tabloid. Yes another one. Take all in it with a dose of exaggeration and a generous helping of skepticism
⁷ Although this was previously because there until-the-last-election only MP, Caroline Lucas, wasn't interested in standing

Lērisama wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:15 pm Source? I'd be very surprised if the trans people I know¹ had become “effectively illegal”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... s-starmer/
https://goodlawproject.org/parliament-s ... et-policy/

Starmer supports the ban on trans people to use either men's or women's bathrooms. This makes it impossible for trans people to hold down a job.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 3:15 pm About Starmer generally, who knows what he really thinks; everything he does is in response to the right wing press getting angry at something and then choosing semi-random policies to U-turn on. I don't think that counts as left, but it's ntot he prototypical centrist either.

I don't know how much clearer Starmer can be than this: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crldey0z00ro

I'm honestly asking whether he supports any leftist policies, because I haven't heard of any.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:48 am The 'center' is defined relatively to other parties; he is to the right of Farage and the Tories (I think)

To rephrase Travis' point (which I agree with), I think leftists tend to underestimate how far right policies can get.

This looks like a fight between the non-populist right and the populist right. Surely there is some point where systemic change becomes the actual way forward.

I know some people don't believe anything is wrong until they see it in a video.

Massive rally: https://youtu.be/GhSJY7RZvUM

Trans people are freaking out: https://youtu.be/dxiih2vvDLg

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 6:14 pm I know some people don't believe anything is wrong until they see it in a video.

Massive rally: https://youtu.be/GhSJY7RZvUM

Trans people are freaking out: https://youtu.be/dxiih2vvDLg

No, I believe things are wrong; but I was taking issue with your exaggeration. I don't like and don't watch videos.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 12:38 am No, I believe things are wrong; but I was taking issue with your exaggeration.

What exaggeration? The effect of this legislation is that trans people will be attacked no matter which gendered bathroom they try to use. Banning people from all public bathrooms is an attack on their existence.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 12:38 am I don't like and don't watch videos.

I was afraid of a lecture from keenir.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 12:55 am

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 12:38 am No, I believe things are wrong; but I was taking issue with your exaggeration.

What exaggeration? The effect of this legislation is that trans people will be attacked no matter which gendered bathroom they try to use. Banning people from all public bathrooms is an attack on their existence.

Unless I'm really behind in what's going on, this is not legislation¹, but statutory guidance. The reason it is terrible is that it is being created by the EHRC, which as I mentioned earlier, is led by a Liz Truss appointee. The reason this matters is that the statutory guidance almost certainly does not reflect the Equality Act it is based on, as it conviently² forgets that the Equality Act also protects Gender Identity³, so it will almost certainly be challenged in the courts, and since the courts are required to read legislation as compatible with Human Rights Law⁴, they will almost certainly win⁵, as the ECHR⁶ has already told the UK off for not treating trans people enough like the gender they self-identity as. The Supreme Court judgement seems to be compatible with a regime where, yes the Equality Act's Woman & Sex don't include trans people, but the main reasonal adjustment for trans people is to treat them as if they were covered by it⁷⁸. So I'm angry, but mainly because we're taking the path of maximum drama, suffering & vitriol to a predifined end point both side seem to think they benefit from ignoring, rather than because of what the end point is.

¹ It might count as secondary legislation actually, but even if it is, what I'm saying still applies
² For the head of the ECHR who has spent time campaigning on this
³ Under the name Gender Reassignment
⁴ Unless Parliament use the magic word “notwithstanding”
⁵ Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Do not take my statements on what courts will do to be authoritative, but my best guess based on my own understanding of the law
⁶ The European court of Human Rights. Yes, the two main institutions known by acronyms in this saga are the ECHR & the EHRC
⁷ Read that disclaimer again here, please
⁸ There is actually a good reason to do it this way – if thr Scottish Government had won, only trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate would be counted under the gender they identify with, while this way all trans people would be, and most trans people don't have GRCs. The fact that a member of the supreme court went on the record to be officially upset at the way undefined certain people were treating the judgement makes me think this is what the supreme court, or at least some of it, intended, but again, the disclaimer.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 1:30 am Unless I'm really behind in what's going on, this is not legislation¹, but statutory guidance.

I don't know whether the government policy changes because of the court ruling has led to positive legislation. I heard that Starmer blocked Scotland's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. As far as I'm aware, the thrust of their effort is to prevent legislation. Other than that, it could just be a statutory code of practice.

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 1:30 am The reason it is terrible is that it is being created by the EHRC, which as I mentioned earlier, is led by a Liz Truss appointee. The reason this matters is that the statutory guidance almost certainly does not reflect the Equality Act it is based on, as it conviently² forgets that the Equality Act also protects Gender Identity³, so it will almost certainly be challenged in the courts, and since the courts are required to read legislation as compatible with Human Rights Law⁴, they will almost certainly win⁵, as the ECHR⁶ has already told the UK off for not treating trans people enough like the gender they self-identity as. The Supreme Court judgement seems to be compatible with a regime where, yes the Equality Act's Woman & Sex don't include trans people, but the main reasonal adjustment for trans people is to treat them as if they were covered by it⁷⁸. So I'm angry, but mainly because we're taking the path of maximum drama, suffering & vitriol to a predifined end point both side seem to think they benefit from ignoring, rather than because of what the end point is.

¹ It might count as secondary legislation actually, but even if it is, what I'm saying still applies
² For the head of the ECHR who has spent time campaigning on this
³ Under the name Gender Reassignment
⁴ Unless Parliament use the magic word “notwithstanding”
⁵ Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Do not take my statements on what courts will do to be authoritative, but my best guess based on my own understanding of the law
⁶ The European court of Human Rights. Yes, the two main institutions known by acronyms in this saga are the ECHR & the EHRC
⁷ Read that disclaimer again here, please
⁸ There is actually a good reason to do it this way – if thr Scottish Government had won, only trans people with a Gender Recognition Certificate would be counted under the gender they identify with, while this way all trans people would be, and most trans people don't have GRCs. The fact that a member of the supreme court went on the record to be officially upset at the way undefined certain people were treating the judgement makes me think this is what the supreme court, or at least some of it, intended, but again, the disclaimer.

I don't know enough about the UK or transgenderism for a point by point answer. In fact, I'm confused about why the ECHR is relevant to UK law so long after Brexit.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:46 pm

Ares Land wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:48 am The 'center' is defined relatively to other parties; he is to the right of Farage and the Tories (I think)

To rephrase Travis' point (which I agree with), I think leftists tend to underestimate how far right policies can get.

This looks like a fight between the non-populist right and the populist right. Surely there is some point where systemic change becomes the actual way forward.

I really think 'centrist' is the correct description for Starmer, but yes, the populist right is a huge part of the problem. I assume that by 'systemic change' you mean leftist policies -- I don't think Britain will see these any time soon -- not with 35% of voters declaring for Reform UK.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Wed Sep 03, 2025 4:46 pm I don't know enough about the UK or transgenderism for a point by point answer. In fact, I'm confused about why the ECHR is relevant to UK law so long after Brexit.

To add confusion to the already confusing acronyms, the European Court of Human Rights is still relevant to British law, because it applies to the Council of Europe, which is a different body than the European Union, and AFAIK Britain is still a member.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:05 am

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 1:30 am Unless I'm really behind in what's going on, this is not legislation¹, but statutory guidance.

I don't know whether the government policy changes because of the court ruling has led to positive legislation. I heard that Starmer blocked Scotland's Gender Recognition Reform Bill. As far as I'm aware, the thrust of their effort is to prevent legislation. Other than that, it could just be a statutory code of practice.

It is exactly that. The Scottish legislation was blocked by the Tories¹, not Starmer, so we don't know what he would have done, unless he made a statement at the time, which I don't think he did, as this was when he was running as a block of wood painted grey, to borrow Raphael's phraising, although I could easily be wrong.

I don't know enough about the UK or transgenderism for a point by point answer. In fact, I'm confused about why the ECHR is relevant to UK law so long after Brexit.

See Ares Land's answer for the ECHR, although I should note that it is policy of Farage⁴, and certain sections of the Tories, to leave the ECHR, because apparently Brexit wasn't enough.

¹ Party because of the Tories being the Tories, but there was a legitimate excuse², if the Scottish government had fought it, they may not have won
² Although gender recognition per se is not reserved³, equalities law is, so whether the Scottish parliament could legislate on it was legitimately contestible
³ I.e. to the UK government
⁴ Although the name name be reform, it is Farage's band of Faragists amd woe betide anyone in it who forgets that

Lērisama wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:43 am It is exactly that. The Scottish legislation was blocked by the Tories¹, not Starmer, so we don't know what he would have done, unless he made a statement at the time, which I don't think he did, as this was when he was running as a block of wood painted grey, to borrow Raphael's phraising, although I could easily be wrong.

I am seeing articles like this: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/244 ... ock-place/

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Sep 04, 2025 2:17 am I assume that by 'systemic change' you mean leftist policies -- I don't think Britain will see these any time soon -- not with 35% of voters declaring for Reform UK.

Not quite. As an old fashioned leftist, I don't believe humans have agency. I think humans are semi-random assemblages of particles that aren't special enough to have a nature, let alone principles. I see society as a materialist system that evolves through feedback loops that occasionally cause major state transitions.

In this view, reactionaries don't support reactionary politics because they are reactionaries. Humans don't have values. Reactionary politics is a social institution that is generated by the feedback loops of the current social system. If the relevant loops were redirected at a fundamental enough level, the combination of ideas we call reactionary politics will no longer command the same power that it currently does.

What would such a change look like? This answer has many dimensions. For example, it is known that the uncertainties caused by a capitalist economy lead people to seek shelter with the traditionalism fascists offer (cf. terror management theory). We need a friendlier economy, progressive social institutions, to get money out of politics so that businesses can't bribe politicians, etc.

In other words, a major overhaul. That's systemic change. What could justify such drastic measures? The power of fascist disregard for the weakest sections of society, the support for genocide, and the decreasing reliability of the old way of doing things could motivate us to look to the future instead of keeping the clunky old engine going.