This has been a strange election to witness from our side of the pond. The polls were saying way in advance that Labour was going to win, but nobody quite believed it. I know I was cynical.
Right up to the wire, Labour politicians could not quite believe they were on track for a historic election victory. Despite every poll for more than a year suggesting Keir Starmer would end up in No 10, they worried something could go wrong.
For some, it was the ghost of 1992, when the polls predicted Neil Kinnock was on course to take power, but in the end John Major’s Conservatives clung on. For others, it was their fear that after 14 years in opposition, Labour had lost the ability to win.
After all, in the last 100 years only three Labour leaders have ever won elections – Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Tony Blair – and the last of those was almost 20 years ago. No opposition leader has ever flipped a landslide defeat into a majority in a single term.
“I can’t help it,” one shadow cabinet member said. “I know everything points to a Labour win. But I still wake up at night in a cold sweat about it.” Yet with the exit poll indicating an overwhelming Labour victory, perhaps the doubtful can finally rest easy.
I guess the prediction actually came true.
Keir Starmer has said the “sunlight of hope” is now shining in Britain again as Labour won a landslide UK election victory, bringing a crushing end to 14 years of Conservative rule.
Wait…you’re telling me a nation can actually successfully kick a political party run by scandal-ridden conservative buffoons out of office? That gives me hope, except that the polls in the USA don’t show that kind of promise at all.
To temper any optimism, though, Nigel Farage won a few seats for his hateful party. Also, I have no idea what’s going on in France, but it doesn’t look good.
Worth noting that despite the enormous majority, Labour actually performed worse in terms of overall percentage of the vote than in 2017 under Corbyn. This is a Tory loss far more than a victory for the centrist, pro Israel Starmer.
That is a weird graphic of the Union Jack.
Yes, a victory for the posh, upper-class, neo-liberal Blairists who drummed out the real leftists because they refused to suck Israel’s rancid cock.
Glad to see the Paisley dynasty gone too even though he’s being replaced by someone even nuttier. Should be fun to see what actual British people make of Jim Allister.
Sinn Féin are now the largest party in N Ireland at all levels of government! Time to get the fuck out of this shithole.
I mean, given how awful the opposition is/was, it’s a huge victory for the UK, it’s just a shame that Labour these days are just Tory-lite and that Starmer is nothing more than an empty suit with no ideas of his own.
I, too, am very disappointed in Starmer’s centre-right version of the Labour Party. They are basically what the Democrats are in your neck of the woods – funded by big business, corporate interests and media conglomerates and far more enthusiastic in attacking genuine progressives than the far right.
They will be better than the Tories. About 5-10% better at a guess, but the fundamental neoliberal capitalist order will not be challenged, and hence none of the systemic issues causing all our problems will be solved. There may well be some heavily qualified good things like additional NHS funding to make some attempt to repair the damage of the last decade and a half.
On the other hand, Jeremy Corbyn – the best Prime Minister we never had and that rarest of animals, a genuinely decent human being in politics – retained his seat as an independent. We also now have four Green Party MPs instead of one, which is good. And Nigel Farpark’s fascists have at least split the Tory vote down the middle.
As for what happens now… probably not very much. I’d like to be proved wrong and see some genuine recovery and progressive improvement, but I doubt it will happen. It is also worth noting that Starmer’s Labour is far from uncomfortable with terfy transphobic shit, so fuck them on that score. The advantage there being they are so slavish in following the opinion polls that when transphobia becomes an electoral liability they will drop it like a stone.
Labour also lost 4 seats to independents almost certainly because of their stance on Palestinians and several others were closer then they would have been.
The LibDems also gained a lot of seats (71 instead of 8) and are more supportive on Trans rights than the Labour party.
Two elections have not yet returned results. One is likely Conservative the other is likely either Scottish Nationalist or Labour.
“This is a Tory loss far more than a victory for the centrist, pro Israel Starmer.”
Yes – Labour gained only a small percentage of votes. The changes were due to conservatives losing votes to the Greens, to Reform and to independents.
Labours proportion of the votes the lowest of any winning party in history, yet a landslide in the number of seats.
Hasn’t Labour also pledged to continue the austerity policy?
I did – it was bleedin’ obvious. A 20%-ish lead in the polls over 18 months is not going to disappear in a campaign of a few weeks, however hysterical the far-right press. Although it turned out that the polls significantly exaggerated the Labour vote, and so their lead over the Tories, which ended up at 10%. And Labour won a huge majority on a fraction over 1/3 of the vote (which is clearly grossly undemocratic), largely because Trump’s bootlicker, Nigel Farage, siphoned off a large chunk of Tory votes, secondarily through some hard-to-assess level of tactical anti-Tory voting. Starmer’s Labour will actually end up with fewer votes than Corbyn’s Labour got in the disastrous defeat of 2019! The two parties which gained most seats, Labour and the LibDems, only marginally increased their share of the vote, and both got fewer total votes than in 2019 as turnout fell considerably.
From my point of view, the best features of the outcome were the election of 4 Green Party of England and Wales MPs (there had only ever been one before, two of the four were in previously Tory seats and so may have resulted from the tactical voting referred to above), a handful of left/pro-Palestinian independents and four instead of two Plaid Cymru (leftish Welsh nationalists) MPs; and the removal of some but by no means all of the vilest Tories. But Farage and three of his Reform Party UK Ltd. minions were elected, and will be ready to promise the earth and stoke hatred of migrants, transgender people, etc. when Starmer’s failure to actually improve people’s lives (inevitable if he sticks to what he’s said about taxation and borrowing, which will demand further cuts to already disintegrating public services and inadequate welfare payments) becomes evident. In Scotland, the SNP took a largely-deserved hammering (like the Tories, in government too long, with more than a whiff of corruption and two recent changes of leader), but my own party, the Scottish Greens, did well – although we only got 3.9% of the Scottish vote, this was by far the best we’ve done at a UK-level election. In my constituency and several others, we beat the Tories into fourth place, coming third after Labour and the SNP.
I expect a “honeymoon period” in which polling will show high levels of support for Starmer, but it won’t last long.
Erlend Meyer@10,
Yes, although of course they don’t call it that.
Roy@8,
A good part of the increase in Green vote share (from around 2.7% of the vote to 6.8%) probably came directly from disillusioned Labour supporters. In particular, one of the GPEW’s co-leaders, Carla Denyer, defeated a sitting Labour MP, Thangam Debbonaire, a member of the “shadow cabinet”, in Bristol Central.
News links and pre-election Owen Jone squestion video here :
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2024/07/04/the-uk-is-having-an-election-on-our-national-holiday/comment-page-1/#comment-2226836
Jonathan Pie’s take on the election results: 50 Shades of Beige. Sobering, but better than alternative, he said optimistically. But ultimately, not much to cheer about.
It’s an election that highlights that the British electoral system is also real screwed up. Labour wins a “landslide” with 33% of the vote. Reform gets 4 MPs having gotten as many votes as Lib Dem (who got 60-some MPs).
Still good result, but…
@ ^ robro : Might not be much to cheer about but still something to cheer about.
Which beats the alternative of nothing at all to cheer about and stuff to despair about yeah? Take something that’s better than nothing or worse. Becoz what wouldýa rather? A small step inthe right direction. Niota giant leap. Not allthat’s wanted or needed but at least something.
Unlike FN France which seems to be going backwards fast,.
@ftltachyon :Not just the British system in Oz, compare the percentages of thsoe who vote Greens versus those who vote Nationals most electionjs esp some recent ones and then there’s the United (Rly? Ünited”eh? LOLsob!) States of America with the EC and ..don’t even get me started..
StevoR — I agree. In fact your words almost exactly the words I was going to write before my partner interrupted me with the Pie piece. Nothing is better than something even more awful, like a second Trump term. We’re in a sad state. I can hardly wait to be told yet again that’s just cowardly acquiescence to the POB. That’s true but my street fighting days are behind me.
A lot of commenters online at the Guardian see, or pretend to see, nothing wrong with Labour getting almost 2/3 of the seats with 1/3 of the votes. Would they feel the same way if it was the Tories, or the fascists, in that position? To ask the question is to know the answer.
@6, Corbyn’s problem is that he’s still fighting battles that everyone else has forgotten (I was involved in some of them). That’s (one) reason he couldn’t give the leadership that could have averted the stupid Brexit thing. I had a ten pound bet with mates that the result would be a Tory/ Farage coalition, and to that extent I’m happy to be wrong, but the 1 in 7 for the racists is troubling. The fact that half a dozen Faragist candidates were exposed as fascist nutters won’t harm his cause at all, he’ll just keep on doing the denial that everyone, especially the crowd that support him, knows is bollocks. As for the votes, Labour’s landslide was on the back of less than 20% of the electorate. The rest pro rata.
The Zionist witchfinder general is now prime minister. It’s a pretty disgusting result all around.
Only after all of the damage the Torys have done.
KG
You are correct, in two of the Green seats, Waveny Valley and the one on the Welsh borders the Tory and Reform votes combined would have seen a win for the right. I hope they’ll be able to hold on to them in years to come, but I don’t think the prospects are good unless they hit very lucky with some issue that affects their constituencies that they can actually make a difference on.
Also while Farage’s Reform ‘only’ got four acknowledged seats, one of the Independents was standing as a Reform candidate before they expelled him when some particularly nasty racist comments he had made came to light. Any takers on how long it will take him to be welcomed back into the fold?
beholder, come on, at least get matters of fact correct!
Nope.
The PM is Keir Starmer, who is neither a Witchfinder nor a Zionist.
(You’re sure no eyeball with eyeballs)
Oh, did you mean he used to be Director of Public Prosecutions and still supports Israel?
Heh. Way to phrase stuff, eh?
@22. beholder : “It’s a pretty disgusting result all around.”
You’re disgusted that itwas an anti-Tory landslide? That Rishi Sunak lost and Truss lost her her seat? That Britaian elected quite a few Greens MPs? Huh. You’d have preferred the Conservative party to win? Really?
Wikipedia. Keir Starmer self identities as an atheist. And the UK 2021 census shows only 46% of UK citizens self identify as Christian. Most interesting! I hope labor does well with Starmer as leader.
The dropping vote for the major parties is also happening in Australia. Essentially it is the result of younger voters getting fed up with both major parties.
This is going to be a disaster in 2029 (or sooner if things really go south). Labour apparently has no major changes to make to policy — a couple of them have floated renegotiating Brexit; the deal as it exists requires the EU and the UK to meet and fine-tune terms every 5 years, but says nothing about redoing everything, and multiple sources in the EU say they are absolutely not going to do that, so it won’t happen. (And vacating the deal unilaterally will be even worse — trading on raw WTO terms would bankrupt the UK tout de suite.)
Like the Democrats, Labour is operating on the assumption that Tory policy is basically sound but was being implemented by morons, and will work just fine if competent people take over. (Which is an… interesting take, for both Labour and the Democrats, because it admits that the people who composed the policy in the first place are morons, but somehow assumes they still created good policy.) This is not going to work; right-wing policy is going to fail no matter who tries to manage it.
It’s going to take a maximum of a year for the voters who switched from the Tories to Labour in this election to notice that nothing is actually improving under Labour, and decide to vote against them next time. Meanwhile, if there is any sort of merger between the Tories and Reform, they will easily beat Labour. If Farage had refrained from fielding candidates, as he did in the past, and 4 out of 5 Reform voters had voted for Tories while the rest stayed home, then the Tories would have won this election. Look for the massive majority to collapse entirely in the very next election.
Incidentally, since nobody else has mentioned it: Corbyn, after provably having been backstabbed by Starmer and actually ejected from the party — even before Starmer started his purge of left-leaning candidates — ran as an independent, and beat the actual Labour candidate.
Oh, also: Labour forced their candidate in Farage’s seat to basically drop out of the race in advance, against their will. There’s something fishy there — given that Farage’s decision to field candidates against the Tories let Labour win, I wonder if there was, let’s say, an understanding.
Sure, but had it not happened, it would have been a disaster in 2025.
Well, other than @11, #6, #11 and #21.
You might as well have written “I commented without reading the comments”, same result.
(heh)
[oops, typo, bad keyboard]
@1, #6, #11 and #21.
(Hey, missing the obvious four times in a row… I bow to your expertise, Vicar the Singular)
Heh.
Vicar is just, well, such a chewtory.
(oops, chewtoy! ;)
Anyway.
The other mob (“tories”) had, um, Rishi Sunak (most recently), and before that, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and David Cameron during their tenure.
But a Vicar (who labels themself unique) complains about the singular Labour previous minister, while carefully not mentioning the many Tory PMs that have fallen by the wayside.
But, of course, no backstabbing there, right?
<snicker>
(Tell me move, Vicar without peer!)
FFS.
What sort of idiot do you imagine would be persuaded by this bullshit, Vicar who is atypical?
(That could hardly be further from the truth)
—
Care to attempt to try to dispute me on this, O Vicarish thing?
(I’m game)
Seriously.
Here is your chance to show me up, O Vicar-creature.
[As always, you’re gonna ignore me, aintcha, Vicar the only.
You do have my pity, FWTW]
@John Morales, who appears to be in some kind of manic seizure, or possibly on drugs:
Um… posts 1, 11, and 21 do not, in fact, say that Corbyn retained his seat despite having to run as an independent, which was my point. You’re right that I missed it in #6. You’re arguably 25% right on that claim, which is a full 25% more than usual for you. Congratulations.
I honestly can’t really tell what you’re trying to say in #34. Maybe when you get over whatever mind-altering substances you’ve apparently ingested you can clarify. But if you’re asking about the backstabbing: the central manufactured “scandal” which was used to oust Corbyn was the claim that he was protecting antisemites within Labour from receiving punishment. (His reputation for “antisemitism” was initially created because he expressed solidarity with Palestinians, who Starmer is perfectly okay with killing, just like Democrats in the US.) The investigation carried out by Labour’s internal review process and later made public showed that Corbyn actually had attempted to get the investigations sped up and the figures involved to face appropriate punishments, but was told by the oversight committee — which was specifically manned by Starmer supporters who were trying to oust him — that he didn’t have the authority to do this and that he should not interfere with the standardized, independent process. At the same time as this was happening, those same committee members were sending claims to the press that Corbyn was hampering them from taking action. It has also been confirmed that Starmer and his allies did targeted ad-buys, Cambridge-Analytica-style, specifically to show in Corbyn’s geographic area on sites he was known to use, trying to convince Corbyn that he was doing better than he was and that he should relax campaigning efforts against the Leave campaign and the Tories. They specifically wanted Labour to lose so that they could blame it on Corbyn and use it to stir up hatred against him. Whether or not you think Leave would have won anyway and the Tories would have gotten a majority afterwards, it is nevertheless the case that Starmer’s faction was dishonest and deliberately trying to harm the party and the country at a critical juncture for their own gain. We call that backstabbing where I come from — maybe you were raised differently.
As for #35: Starmer has been publicly anti-immigration (particularly of Bangladeshis) like the Tories, and has made repeated Islamophobic comments in public. He’s publicly pro-austerity on social spending (although he’s kept it quiet for the last couple of weeks) and also publicly pro-military-spending at a point when a quarter of Britons are relying on food banks. IIRC he backed the failed attempt to create a UK-specific alternative to the CE mark, which everybody in manufacturing knew would be a disaster from the start. He has agreed with the DWP’s policy of declaring nearly everybody fit for work, regardless of medical status, and cutting their benefits. He’s jumped on the anti-trans bandwagon (he had J. K. Rowling, who is the central source of funding for the UK’s TERF movement, over for tea to discuss things the other day, and the next day made a pro-TERF statement to the press). He said he was unwilling to work with the SNP in any significant capacity, but said he is willing to work with Marine Le Pen. He removed the anti-NHS-privatization promise from the Labour manifesto a few weeks ago, which means he agrees with the Tories on that, too.
So, either he’s agreeing with, and presumably going to continue, Tory policies which he thinks will continue to fail and be unpopular — technically that’s extremely unlikely but he hasn’t actually denied that he actively wants his government to fail, who knows, maybe he’s just a satirist who is really committed to the bit — or else he really believes in those policies, and thinks the only reason the Tories did not succeed with them was the Tories themselves, which is what I said.
John, beholder’s characterisation is pretty accurate. Starmer is certainly a Zionist, i.e. a supporter of the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethno-state, and “Witchfinder” I assume to be a metaphor for his vindictive purging of the left within the Labour Party.
John, you should take your own advice about accuracy. Only cartomancer @6 mentioned Corbyn’s win as an independent before The Vicar’s #30. I mentioned @11 “a handful of left/pro-Palestinian independents” – of which Corbyn was one, but I didn’t name him as one of them. Other comments about Corbyn compared the Labour electoral performance under his leadership with that under Starmer this time. You’re correct in contradicting The Vicar’s claim that Labour policies will be the same as the Tories – he propounds exactly the same silliness w.r.t the Democrats and Republicans in the USA – but in some key respects he’s right: Starmer and his chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have accepted Tory fiscal constraints, and many of their tax policies, which will mean they simply cannot repair public services or provide adequate welfare payments without breaking these constraints; and has promised no significant change to the Brexit settlement with the EU. In general, I would characterise Starmer as “Tory-lite”, while the actual Tories have been moving steadily toward the far right – and I guess will continue to do so. My fear is that Starmer is the UK’s Macron – a centrist who will inadvertently pave the way for fascism by imposing austerity and disappointing the hopes placed in him.
Ah, back from walking the pooch. O joy!
Also, my keyboard is fucked but I am sufficiently competent.
(Work it is, but; and it’s gonna be a few days. But I abide — though, alas, I must needs preview)
—
(Poopiness has ensued, civic was I)
Oh yeah, drugged-out, it appears that I am to you.
The converse is, of course, that your apprehension that I am somehow druggifed (or is that druggificated? Druggilificated?) appears so to you because you are clueless.
(What I am, is in a mood)
Of course.
<checks>
“The other mob (“tories”) had, um, Rishi Sunak (most recently), and before that, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, and David Cameron during their tenure.
But a Vicar (who labels themself unique) complains about the singular Labour previous minister, while carefully not mentioning the many Tory PMs that have fallen by the wayside.”
Right. Concept at hand is ‘cardinality’.
See, the cardinality of (Rishi, Liz, Boris, Theresa, David ) > that of (Cameron, Starmer).
(Go for it, try to dispute that, please)
Booze. Yeah, I’m demented, in your feeble fantasy.
The only people who need clarification are the, um, less than average specimens.
(Still want clarification?)
Um, when was that?
(Like, Tories have been in power for 14 years)
Kinda weak, now that Starer is actually PM.
But sure, any idiot will get that what you say is what you believe.
(Shame I’m not an idiot, eh?)
<snicker>
You imagine you’ve exhausted the universe of possibility?
Truly a dichotomy, eh? The horns of a dilemma, eh?
—
FWIW, kudos, Vicar (definite article).
Engaging with me, for such as you, is quite brave. Reckless, arguably, but brave.
—
KG, sure. Etc.
Still, I gotta pee, gotta see to my friends, and so forth.
RL intrudes, all that.
Maybe tomorrow.
(Quickie, but. What the fuck does Corbyn to have to do with anything? That’s Vicar’s schtick)
[sneak in quickly]
“My fear is that Starmer is the UK’s Macron – a centrist who will inadvertently pave the way for fascism by imposing austerity and disappointing the hopes placed in him.”
Better than worse is not good enough.
(I get it)
Some reasons to celebrate the new government:
— 46% of the majority’s MPs are women, which is a record, double that of the Tory minority.
— 40% women overall, also a record.
— the Cabinet will have a record number of women, including the first ever female Chancellor.
— 63% of the current crop of MPs went to state schools, the highest percentage in history.
— a record 89 minority ethnic MPs were elected to parliament overall.
So regardless of what happens over during the next UK government term, the House of Commons (which wields the power in the UK) is more representative of the British general public than ever before.
Oh, god. Are we really doing conspiracy theories on this blog now?
KG, everyone else is being social, so… I am different.
I should. But then… well, I’ve been accused of being hyperliteral.
Of not getting non-literal stuff.
(Perhaps I’ve been too overt,?)
Rembember the Bobiferant?
(Apparently, I am pathologically hyperliteral and maybe even spectral, and also I exhibit low self-esteem and supposedly need therapy)
Just saying, maybe I’m not always all that literal?
(Sometimes, I am genuine)
—
[Ack! Fuckin dog fart! It’s bad]
(Stream of consciousness FTW)
[quickie]
Drugginess is.
Hormones are.
(Hey, O Vicar that needs specifying to be addressed, how’s your estimation about my going?
Hey, in your estimation, are caffeine and nicotine considered to be ‘drugs’?
What about alcohol (I mean ethanol, of course)?
—
Also, I think what you (imagine) you know about seizures is lacking, O Vicar-thing.
Or about polar disorder, for that matter.
(I am free of it, and I do appreciate that)
(That’s actually rather insulting to some people, but you do you)
Not to get in the middle of this, but two small points:
To be fair, all across Europe, anyone who isn’t in Putin’s pocket is pro-military spending at this point, for reasons that might be obvious.
He’s talking about the internal power struggle in Labour. I believe it was back in 2020. It has nothing to do with the Tories.
Anyway, carry on.
Schadenfreude is great
“Liv Struss Loses Seat in General Election: Inner Monologue (A Liz Truss Parody)”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=UeFx4yMZZ0o
Liz Truss is the former prime minister that lasted less time than a head pf lettuce.
Owen Jones is very pro-Palestine and progressive and he’s pretty happy about what happened as he relateshere – The Left Is Back, Baby – And Tories Smashed Into Tiny Pieces, – A dozen minutes long.
Cautious optimism.
“Starmer Shock Appointments Prove This Will be Different”
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=IhxlJgWxU9U
Sunak reacts to losing the election
.https://youtube.com/watch?v=r63MEwal2RY
@30.. The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) :
Let’s worry about this year and the next few years first maybe? A lot can and will change before 2029.
Now they are in government so we’ll see how they go with doing that. How they handle things as they arise and what if any policies they actually operate. Do you seriously think that Labour will do worse or equally badly & incompetently as the Tories have done recently? Be as embarassingly bad as BoJo, Truss, Sunak, ad nauseam?
Are they tho’? Abelist language much too? Please let’s not use intellectual impairments terms as insults as if such people aren’t still better humans than the likes of Trump, Truss, Scummo, Abbott, et al.
Except again what will the Tories offer & will it be any better? People will remember how bad the last Tory govts were – even with Murdoch doing its worst. You are also assuming here that things won’t improve under the Labour govt in Britain and that will hopefully be a false premise on your part.
Very big “IF” which I doubt will happen. If, OTOH, as more likely they don’t, well, they won’t.
Take your tinfoil hat off or / and provide some much needed citations please Vicar.
I know. Actually started in 2016, which was a bad year, politically.
Thing is, it’s all Starmer and Corbyn, just as when in the USA it was all Obama and Hillary when Trump was in power, for the Vicar.
The Telegraph is Big Mad (TM) about this and I am here for it.
tacitus at 42 wrote:
I just saw something related to this on Twitter, and had some thoughts that are too lengthy to post over there.
See, people were showing a screenshot of JK Rowling (already mentioned by The Vicar at 38) making a transphobic comment on the election result, reliable as clockwork. She quoted someone named Harriet Harman celebrating the “record 264 women MPs” and commented simply “How do you know they’re women?”
People mostly interpreted this as a call to feel paranoid and suspect that some of the 264 women MPs are secretly trans ie. “actually men” (apparently, none of the new MPs are publicly trans). I guess that’s indeed what Rowling meant, if her social media communication has fully devolved into mindless buzzphrase transphobia. I haven’t really kept track on that.
My own first thought was that she’s maintaining some pretense of intellectualism and mocking the notion of gender as subjective identity. As in, “We have 264 MPs who are women on official record, without anyone ever thinking otherwise based on their outward appearance – but have you actually confirmed in person that they all identify as women?” It’s a variant of one of the two transphobic jokes, the “Did you just assume my gender?” joke. Obviously, transphobes think it’s both ludicrous and dangerous if it’s true that you can’t know someone’s gender for certain without asking them.
This thought reminded me of an anecdote here in Finland a few years ago. In a municipal election, thousands of local councilmembers were elected across the country. The national broadcasting company Yle wanted to gather nationwide data on the gender breakout, so they sent a query to the municipalities. Since this is the 21st century, the query form had the options “man”, “woman” and “other”. However, they apparently forgot to consider that official records of personal data in Finland only recognize two genders. The data is actually structured so that you can’t log in your personal identity code (as in when registering as a political candidate) without revealing your official gender, though in principle your gender shouldn’t have any relevance in politics.
Most localities obligingly reported the number of men and women in their council, presumably based on official record. However, the city of Turku sent a note saying, basically, “We cannot respond to this query according to the parameters requested, due to lack of data”. In the ensuing public discussion, it was noted that creating an official record of each councilmember’s gender identity would likely constitute an illegal invasion of privacy. Since then, there have been increasing demands to abolish the official record of people’s birth-assigned gender, and there are actual plans to at least separate said record from the core identification.
The point is that, although we can usually know each other’s gender with reasonable accuracy without asking (based on either official ID, or outward appearance), it’s good to take it with a pinch of salt. Also, the gender of a specific person might legitimately vary based on available data, and on which gender categories are being considered – but the more personal the context, the more important it is for subjective gender identity to take precedence.
(Also, in the last couple years Finland has greatly reduced the hurdles required for updating your legal gender within the binary. This should make it increasingly likely that people do have a gender identity matching their legal gender.)
That is, JK Rowling was mentioned by The Vicar at 38, not the specific screenshot I discussed above.
On the subject of Labour being the same as the Tories:
Sir Keir Starmer has confirmed the Rwanda deportation scheme is “dead and buried”, on his first full day as prime minister.
There’s much to criticize about Starmer’s version of Labour, but not that.
Labour put a huge amount of resources into their attempt to defeat Corbyn, and failed decisively (he won by 7,247 votes, when the best result expected – for Corbyn – was a narrow victory). They did the same in Brighton Pavilion, which they were trying to recapture from the Green Party of England and Wales (it’s very popular MP, Caroline Lucas, was retiring, always a point of weakness), and in Bristol Central, where shadow cabinet member Thangam Debbonaire was up against GPEW co-leader Carla Denyer, and failed dismally in both cases. Four Muslims running mainly on the Gaza issue also defeated Labour candidates, Starmer’s own majority was cut significantly by an independent, and the vile Wes Streeting, the new health secretary who aims to privatise much of the NHS, was run very close.
As for The Vicar’s speculation @30 about an understanding between Labour and Farage over Clacton, very unlikely. However tacit, if it came out it would be bad publicity. In any case, Starmer was completely focused on fighting off any challenge from the left/pro-Palestinians*, and after that maximising the number of seats Labour won, and Clacton was a longshot – however much effort they put in, winning would be dependent on the division of votes between Farage and the Tory being close to even. It looks suspicious to have told their candidate to go and campaign in another seat, but I suspect that was just Starmer’s control-freakery – everyone in the party should be under his control at all times, and know it, so if he says “Jump”, respond “How high, Sir Keir?”.
*The politics of the four Muslim Gaza-focused seat winners mentioned @56 on other issues are somewhat opaque. One (I can’t find the names at present, having a couple of thousand tabs open) appeared to be a leftist, another is an ex-LibDem with some dodgy views on LGBT issues, the remaining two I could find nothing on.
True, but Starmer and Corbyn are still politically active (and have been continuously), while Obama and even H. Clinton are not, even if they still have residual influence.
With reference to Clacton, it’s also possible Starmer wanted to give the Tories the best chance to defeat Farage. He’s more likely to be an effective thorn in Starmer’s flesh than any of the prospective Tory leaders – he’s a practised and effective demagogue and in absolute control of his followers, while it’s by no means certain the Tories can manage even a facade of unity after the stunning and unprecedented defeat they have suffered. With Farage in the Commons, I think it’s possible there could be a realignment, with many of the Tory remnant going over to Reform Party UK Ltd. in the next year or two, possibly even making him the official “Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” (that this position exists shows the extent the British establishment is prepared to go to in order to domesticate any conceivable threats to their hegemony). BTW, my tip for next Tory leader is Robert Jenrick – I might even have a flutter on him. He’s shifted right along with the party, but could still appeal to the relative moderates as an alternative to such as Badenoch or Braverman. He also has the advantages of being white and male, unlike (rather remarkably) most of the other plausible contenders.
Some information about the 4 Muslim independents who camapigned primarily on Gaza and defeated Labour candidates.