news & politics:discussion

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Ending no fault evictions, National landlords register and decent homes standards are good things which will help renters especially ending no fault evictions.

Banning zero-hours contracts, seems like a good position to have on zero-hours contracts.

The only one of those that will help is the "decent homes standard". The national landlord's register will be a nothing-form/database.

It's a terrible position to have on zero-hour contracts. They're great for a lot of casual workers (particularly students with a part-time flexible job), but they're exploited by bad faith employers to deny workers their basic rights. I'm on zero-hour contracts for my 3rd and 4th job, and I employ people on zero-hour contracts at my main job. 1/3 of them are absolutely great and highly practical ways to cover sickness and give both employee and employer flexibility. The issue is how they're misused.

[Neil]

11 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

"self-ID doesn't apply if the crime was sexual in nature". That'd get rid of the idiocy around the case in Scotland and the fuss over it.

it would also make self-id pointless for a lot of trans I know of in prisons, - most are sex offenders, one is violence(there might be others those are just the ones i know of.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The issue is how they're misused.

true- banning zhc's won't make those bad employers become good employers.

it also doesn't address where zhc's work well for employee and employer.

[gizmoman]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Self-ID in the full version, would accelerate past the incredibly obnoxious process for obtaining a GRC and stop people having to have an absolute mish-mash across different forms for 4-7 years. Living with different legal/social names and genders is an absolute nightmare and causes constant harassment while filling out forms and contact details.

The campaigners against self-ID are literally all arguing against it on the "predators will do this to access spaces", and equating all trans people as predatory men. 

Even under self-ID (which does work in every country that has it), there would still be more ways to stop predators identifying as trans to access spaces, than there currently are to stop predators becoming cops.

Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?

No they equate this proposed easing of the regulations as giving predatory men a way of abusing the system, this is what I said in my first post, it's all very well saying there will be safeguards but it was introduced in Scotland and immediately led to an issue.

"Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?",

I'm sure it isn't easy, but then if i woke up tomorrow and decided I should be a women I wouldn't expect to be able to change overnight after decades of living as a man. I'm sure life as a trans person is difficult and if there are reasonable ways to improve the system then I'm sure they will eventually be found.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Neil said:

the problem is adopting unworkable policies. as happened with trans self-id. the trans lobby shouted down anyone who identified the issues.

Unworkable policies like treating refugees as human beings, or reducing child poverty?

Equating trans people fighting for basic rights with the loud minority on twitter and suggesting its a unified "trans lobby" is like equating all men with Jordan Petersen and Andrew Tate. There's idiots in every group.

Trans women are far more likely to be the victim of sexual assault/domestic violence than the perpetrator, yet on the whole still understand when those therapy groups might not want them there. The problem with arguments about trans people, is that incredibly nuanced issues such as prisons, abuse victims, professional sport, which affect a tiny % of a tiny % of the population, are used as a stick to deny all trans people any rights. The solution is to say "trans people deserve rights, but there's a few issues like these where it creates difficulties and conflicts, so lets try and find sensible ways to handle these as they come up, and consider them on individual case-by-case until we work out some good long-term guidelines for these conflicts".

The solution is not to deny people a right to exist as themselves, and to incite hate-crime.

[Neil]

2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

equating all trans people as predatory men.

not all - but some are (there's similar cases in English prisons to that Scottish case.) its the 'some' that are the concern. self-id  makes it difficult to manage safely.

 

 

[Neil]

5 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?",

no, and neither do i think the suggested alternative is that - self-id is meaningless if it's revoked for prisons.

[kaosmark2]

4 minutes ago, Neil said:

true- banning zhc's won't make those bad employers become good employers.

it also doesn't address where zhc's work well for employee and employer.

Very few good employers misuse zhc in ways that create notable problems for the employee. I don't really know what other solution there is for small-businesses wanting part-time staff to cover busy periods and sickness, when those staff also want a few shifts but not commitment to regular rotas or high numbers of hours.

[Neil]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

are used as a stick to deny all trans people any right

its not that if there's not better solutions than the initial problem - if it makes an issue worse that should be considered in the round.

[Neil]

Just now, kaosmark2 said:

Very few good employers misuse zhc in ways that create notable problems for the employee. I don't really know what other solution there is for small-businesses wanting part-time staff to cover busy periods and sickness, when those staff also want a few shifts but not commitment to regular rotas or high numbers of hours.

its more than the basics, also includes stuff like pension rights and costs, 

[Ozanne]

20 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Lmao. I've spent 13 of the past 16 years in the Labour party and campaigning for them. I left Labour when it became clear Corbyn was willing to abandon the Jewish communities, and I left again when it became clear Starmer would abandon the queer communities.

I expect Labour party to be better than the Cameron/Osborne/Clegg government. The last 18 months have made me believe they won't be. Sure that's still miles better than the Boris/Truss/Sunak era, but it's not good enough. They abandon pledges on every issue.

Sorry, that’s how you come across as someone with an anti-Labour bias where nothing they do/information provided is good enough. If you took a step back and looked at those policies you’ll see that there are good steps being made but you don’t seem willing to give them a chance.

16 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

The only one of those that will help is the "decent homes standard". The national landlord's register will be a nothing-form/database.

It's a terrible position to have on zero-hour contracts. They're great for a lot of casual workers (particularly students with a part-time flexible job), but they're exploited by bad faith employers to deny workers their basic rights. I'm on zero-hour contracts for my 3rd and 4th job, and I employ people on zero-hour contracts at my main job. 1/3 of them are absolutely great and highly practical ways to cover sickness and give both employee and employer flexibility. The issue is how they're misused.

Take this for example, you moaned that there wasn’t good policies for renters yet there is literally a policy to end no fault evictions and as a former renter that would’ve been such a relief for me a few years back.

There’s also a whole raft of policies there on a deal for workers where they will guarantee the right to flexible working from day 1, basic rights for all workers from day 1 and ending one-sides flexibility to provide better security for workers which would go part of the way to alleviate some of your concerns surely.

Whilst it might not be the purity you seem to be after if you looked at these proposals with a truly open mind you’ll see that they might be a good first step. Rome wasn’t built in a day after all. 

[kaosmark2]

9 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

No they equate this proposed easing of the regulations as giving predatory men a way of abusing the system, this is what I said in my first post, it's all very well saying there will be safeguards but it was introduced in Scotland and immediately led to an issue.

"Do you think the current system as I describe it seems reasonable, fair, or practical?",

I'm sure it isn't easy, but then if i woke up tomorrow and decided I should be a women I wouldn't expect to be able to change overnight after decades of living as a man. I'm sure life as a trans person is difficult and if there are reasonable ways to improve the system then I'm sure they will eventually be found.

It's easier for a man to become a cop than to become a woman. Which do you think attracts predatory men more naturally?

I've never known any trans people expect things to change over night. Everyone I know spent years wrestling and feeling confused, not realising that other issues with tied in with dysphoria. Coming out it is scary, painful, and liberating. Reaching that coming out moment is often a long-process, and then having to deal with all the difficulties - about 80% of which are unnecessary - is exhausting and draining. Full self-ID would solve about 1/3 of those, easier medical pathways would solve another 1/3. Labour has already backtracked on both, and created this response:

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/04/19/lgbt-labour-pride-uk-keir-starmer-backlash-trans/

Queer people now see Labour flying a pride flag as the equivalent of McDonalds doing it. Meaningless, empty, tone-deaf claimed allyship.

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Sorry, that’s how you come across as someone with an anti-Labour bias where nothing they do/information provided is good enough. If you took a step back and looked at those policies you’ll see that there are good steps being made but you don’t seem willing to give them a chance.

Take this for example, you moaned that there wasn’t good policies for renters yet there is literally a policy to end no fault evictions and as a former renter that would’ve been such a relief for me a few years back.

There’s also a whole raft of policies there on a deal for workers where they will guarantee the right to flexible working from day 1, basic rights for all workers from day 1 and ending one-sides flexibility to provide better security for workers which would go part of the way to alleviate some of your concerns surely.

Whilst it might not be the purity you seem to be after if you looked at these proposals with a truly open mind you’ll see that they might be a good first step. Rome wasn’t built in a day after all. 

I've been giving Labour a chance since Corbyn stopped being leader. I gave up several months ago and now fully believe that our next Labour government will do less to support vulnerable people than Cameron did. I hope they prove me wrong, but everything they've said and done over the last 18 months has just made me more cynical.

[mattiloy]

35 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Take this for example, you moaned that there wasn’t good policies for renters yet there is literally a policy to end no fault evictions and as a former renter that would’ve been such a relief for me a few years back.

There’s also a whole raft of policies there on a deal for workers where they will guarantee the right to flexible working from day 1, basic rights for all workers from day 1 and ending one-sides flexibility to provide better security for workers which would go part of the way to alleviate some of your concerns surely.

Whilst it might not be the purity you seem to be after if you looked at these proposals with a truly open mind you’ll see that they might be a good first step. Rome wasn’t built in a day after all. 

Ending no fault evictions and having employers offer more flexibility in work were both in the tories 2019 manifesto.

[Neil]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

  

 

There was no idiocy with the csse in Scotland just in Scottish law where the self Id situation raised some serious safety issues that had been dismissed as transphobic smears.

[Neil]

What are labour gonna do for vegetable rights?

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Ending no fault evictions and having employers offer more flexibility in work were both in the tories 2019 manifesto.

Oh, bad policies then.

[mattiloy]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Oh, bad policies then.

Just that things start to look a bit threadbare when you’re scratching around in the cupboard and all you can find to demonstrate the ’goodness’ of Sir Kid Starver’s Labour is policies cribbed from the tory manifesto in 2019.

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Just that things start to look a bit threadbare when you’re scratching around in the cupboard and all you can find to demonstrate the ’goodness’ of Sir Kid Starver’s Labour is policies cribbed from the tory manifesto in 2019.

Things are threadbare. We're f**ked.

They can stick that on a leaflet too 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

its more than the basics, also includes stuff like pension rights and costs, 

Ya. They make a big difference.

[Neil]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Ya. They make a big difference.

They do for an employer not able to take on the full load of a permanent employee.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

 

Trans women are far more likely to be the victim of sexual assault/domestic violence than the perpetrator, yet on the whole still understand when those therapy groups might not want them there. The problem with arguments about trans people, is that incredibly nuanced issues such as prisons, abuse victims, professional sport, which affect a tiny % of a tiny % of the population, are used as a stick to deny all trans people any rights. The solution is to say "trans people deserve rights, but there's a few issues like these where it creates difficulties and conflicts, so lets try and find sensible ways to handle these as they come up, and consider them on individual case-by-case until we work out some good long-term guidelines for these conflicts".

The solution is not to deny people a right to exist as themselves, and to incite hate-crime.

I agree with most about what you say about the problem. I’m not sure the solution you have is workable with the electorate and media we have, not the one you would like there to be. I am not convinced there are a mass of people looking for sensible solutions to nuanced issues. If we are talking about these nuanced issues a week before the election we are playing in to the conservatives hands.

[Ozanne]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Oh, bad policies then.

The Tories didn’t enact no fault evictions though, he’s conveniently missed that part out. 

[Neil]

10 hours ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

I wonder if Farage will get any compensation. A few years ago a housing benefits worker gave my landlord some personal information about my situation at the time. I made a complaint and she got a warning and I got 50 quid. 

the bank that likes to say "f**k off nigel"

[zahidf]

16 hours ago, lost said:

I wonder if this will lead to Starmer re-appointing Rosie Duffield to the front bench? It does seem quite a shift.

I thought it would happen though after what happened to the SNP.

Bloody hope not. She's openly transphobic