Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Mikey10]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

He’s so thinned-skinned. It’s actually hilarious how much he cannot stand being questioned, given he is a politician.

Reminds me of someone…

£5 million rather puts Starmer’s new glasses and a couple of suits in the shade…trying to remember who was kicking up most stink about that…hmmm…

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

He’s so thinned-skinned. It’s actually hilarious how much he cannot stand being questioned, given he is a politician.

Reminds me of someone…

£5 million rather puts Starmer’s new glasses and a couple of suits in the shade…trying to remember who was kicking up most stink about that…hmmm…

That wasnt mentioned on winword 3.1

 

[Jurgen the German]

I agree with most of that Jurg...but most of the brick that comes with the job get activated the moment you arrive from the outside....it's like a tank of piranhas. And it's way beyond the daily broadsheets and tabloids of yesteryear, everyone gets and wants their fill.

It crushed Starmer. He knew he'd be facing it, and he tried to rail against it BUT there's too many people absorbed by this brick, and the storyline has to be neverending, so there's no let up.

I think it's likely Starmer would have been a good PM in a different era.

Interesting to see how Burnham goes

Fair points. As I've said before, I quite like Starmer as a person. He comes across as a decent man with solid values. However, his premiership has been blighted by too many avoidable mistakes, and the Peter Mandelson issue is probably the most damaging. Either he knew about Mandelson failing DV vetting and wasn't honest about it, or he didn't know. Having worked in an industry where DV clearance is required for certain roles, I know how rigorous that process is. I'm genuinely not sure which scenario is worse.

To be honest, I don't know why anyone would want to be Prime Minister. The level of scrutiny, the intrusive nature of the British press, and the instant trial-by-social-media culture would put most people off, social media is like frontier justice. I can see why Starmer was a successful lawyer, and he undoubtedly ran an effective campaign to get into Downing Street. But the reality is that most of the job happens behind closed doors, and there has clearly been a breakdown somewhere within the operation.

I've mentioned the problem of backstabbing before. Looking across the political spectrum, I struggle to see many politicians who wouldn't be prepared to throw a Prime Minister under the bus if it brought the top job within reach. Ambition is part of politics, but loyalty often seems to be in very short supply.

 

[thfcsteff]

You are correct and it’s worth keeping a sense of proportion. The number of transgender athletes competing at elite levels is very small, and there are many issues facing the country that affect far more people on a daily basis. Government attention should not become consumed by a debate that, in practical terms, affects relatively few individuals.

However, saying it is not the biggest issue facing the country is different from saying it is not an issue at all. Questions about fairness, women's opportunities, safeguarding, and inclusion are legitimate public policy concerns. Dismissing those concerns out of hand is unlikely to persuade anyone and often deepens divisions.

The most constructive approach is to recognise two truths at the same time: transgender people deserve respect and inclusion, and women deserve confidence that female sporting categories remain fair. The challenge is finding policies that balance those interests as fairly as possible, rather than pretending one side's concerns do not exist.

On a planet with billions of people, I'd say that the concern is (to put it mildly) grossly inflated. It is a potential issue which has (IMO) been magnified to perpetuate (and add to) a sense of 'fear'.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Sure. But you made it the first point in response to the Burnham news. Hence the response.

It is a minor issue on the scale of things.

And the Trans community are so small but seem to be pushed in to the media hate cycle. I just want them to be left alone.

Fair observation, Luton. In hindsight, I probably should have led with the everyday issues that affect far more people: the economy, the cost of living, improving public services, and tackling knife crime. I love sport and I care about ensuring competition is fair and safe, but I accept that I can sometimes devote more attention to that issue than its overall importance might justify.

The trans debate probably does pale in comparison to those bigger challenges, and it undoubtedly gets amplified by the more extreme voices on both sides. That said, I still think it's an area where Labour has unnecessarily tied itself in knots over the past five to ten years. To me, it feels like there was an opportunity to occupy a sensible middle ground: treating trans people with dignity and respect while also acknowledging legitimate concerns around fairness, safeguarding, and women's spaces.

Instead, Labour often seemed reluctant to articulate that balance clearly, which has allowed the Conservatives to appear like the more pragmatic voice on some culture-war issues. That's not a sentence I ever expected to write, but politics can be strange like that

 

[LutonSpurs]

Fair observation, Luton. In hindsight, I probably should have led with the everyday issues that affect far more people: the economy, the cost of living, improving public services, and tackling knife crime. I love sport and I care about ensuring competition is fair and safe, but I accept that I can sometimes devote more attention to that issue than its overall importance might justify.

The trans debate probably does pale in comparison to those bigger challenges, and it undoubtedly gets amplified by the more extreme voices on both sides. That said, I still think it's an area where Labour has unnecessarily tied itself in knots over the past five to ten years. To me, it feels like there was an opportunity to occupy a sensible middle ground: treating trans people with dignity and respect while also acknowledging legitimate concerns around fairness, safeguarding, and women's spaces.

Instead, Labour often seemed reluctant to articulate that balance clearly, which has allowed the Conservatives to appear like the more pragmatic voice on some culture-war issues. That's not a sentence I ever expected to write, but politics can be strange like that

Respect your position and your politeness. Thanks.

 

[Jurgen the German]

On a planet with billions of people, I'd say that the concern is (to put it mildly) grossly inflated. It is a potential issue which has (IMO) been magnified to perpetuate (and add to) a sense of 'fear'.

In the grand scheme of things, you're probably right, and there's no doubt the issue has been hijacked by bad actors looking to inflame tensions rather than find solutions. That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate concerns, though. Part of the reason the debate has become so contentious is that some people have felt unable to raise those concerns without facing serious professional or personal consequences.

Whether you agree with their views or not, there have been cases where people have lost jobs, damaged their careers, or faced significant public backlash for speaking out on the issue. That's not a healthy place for any public debate to be. It should be possible to discuss complex questions around fairness, safeguarding, and rights in a way that is respectful to trans people while also allowing legitimate concerns to be aired and challenged without fear.