If they were competent academics, they'd know the culture wars were manufactured, and to be aware that politicians can shape public discourse then disregard this and assume they must bow to and react to manufactured discourse is weird and illogical.
Absorbing your opponents positions isn't useful, especially when large swathes of your support is resisting the erosion of civil rights. You'd just erode your own support and suppress your own turnout.
So Tories screwed our economic situations and Keir's Labour will keep us here.
What is the point in a massive majority if you'll do what the predecessors did? Power for power's sake?
Streeting is a Tory with a red rosette. From the right-wing Blairite faction (Progress) and one of the most disloyal and unprofessional politicians when Corbyn was leader.
Expectations of better in this guy would be misplaced.
We can debate this all day long but we all know torque is cheap.
Labour were like 1% point better than 2019. The only difference was the collapse of SNP, and the collapse of the Tory nationalist vote that ran to Reform.
Labour just walked the ball into the open net.
Misogyny happens everywhere, but it doesn't help fight it when calling the public misogynists because they didn't support a dreadful candidate. A man can be a dreadful candidate, and so can a woman.
The degradation of women's rights is down to failure of the Democrats to maintain balance in the supreme court. It also represents RBGs inability to step aside when Democrats were in power. Supreme Court justices should have some decency, retire at say 67, and allow a new generation to come along. Clinging on until 87 was insanely risky as you certainly need 5 to 10 years leeway to navigate out on your terms. RBG was eulogised, but her clinging to her seat undermined a careers work and any progress on women's rights amongst other core rights.
UK citizen here. Already had 3 women prime ministers.
It wasn't that Hilary was a woman, simply she was more dislikable than Liz Truss and seemed to put nothing out to convince people to vote for her. It wasn't clear at all what she stood for or what her platform was.
It came across as entitled and like she took the electorate for granted. No matter how great or good you think you are, or how bad your rival is, you still have to ask the electorate to lend you their vote.
Ultimately, relationships often depend on it. Many men in my life are fine and comfortable when I express vulnerability or weakness. Though when I do in relationships, it often goes sideways. Decision making, certainty and very positively received. Alongside that, recent relationships respond positively as they prefer a submissive role.
The woman in my life have generally maintained this type of role.
For further clarification, physical violence hasn't been required or welcome in adult life. Barely seen a usage since school.
I disagree. Under Blair, we increased spending on health as a percentage of the overall budget. Something Kier isn't offering. I cannot stand Blair as a person, but I cannot help but feel he offered more to people than Kier has. When you're getting outflanked to the left by a war criminal, it's pretty bleak.
"She told the Sunday Telegraph extra money for public services would have to come from economic growth."
So no money for public service improvements. They are saying they will do no different to the Tories. So they are happy with the state of almost collapse in the NHS and people waiting on trollies in corridors in winter.
Celebrating this and that they are getting backed by big business. If you are paid and your decisions are based on that, isn't that corruption. Celebrating being corrupt? How is this attractive to anyone, left or right?
False, and I'll assume you are American.
In the UK, you are protected up to £85k per bank.
https://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/
Government regulation can protect people. I know that concept seems crazy in USA.