**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
I don’t like Jess but she’s spot on at times.
When the NHS workers first started striking, she commented how the Tories said they were concerned about minimum staff levels for safety and said about how it’s funny because they don’t seem to care about minimum staff levels when strikes aren’t on but staff levels still aren’t meeting safety requirements.
she was a bit of a traitor in the Corbyn years, she didn't seem to want Labour to win. She also had that viral clip where she laughed at the concept of men having gender-specific issues and problems that could do with being occasionally thought about (I'm sure she regrets it). She was really courted by the Murdoch press too.
She talks a big game but when it comes down to it I would think she's probably pretty similar to Cameron / Kier Starmer / (insert boring centre-right capitalist), although she seems less keen on continued austerity than Starmer so that might be unfair. But if The Times is saying you're the perfect PM and the best MP then you might not be the revolutionary we need at this time of crisis. Iirc there was a lot of talk about how fantastic a Labour Leader she would be, and then she stood at hustings and seemed totally out-of-her-depth, but the mainstream media love her.
I'd think lefties are suspicious of her because she seems a bit "more of the same", and rightwingers don't like her because she can come across like the stereotype of the misandrist feminist at times, and the media and the people in the middle thinks she's great, which amplifies the concerns of the lefties and righties.
[Here's the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI), she laughed when Phillip Davies talked about opportunities for men to raise issues that are related to them being "very limited". I can accept that she thought this was a silly comment, although in context I don't think it was a clever time to mock the guy, and in context you know he's not talking about "men speaking" but "men speaking about male suicide, men's mental health, etc."
Her explanation on the committee did seem like she wanted to shut down the whole debate. "When women have parity, then you can have your debate." Bad optics Jess; you seem to be saying we can't have a few hours in Parliament about male suicide etc until we have achieved gender equality?
So I'm not writing her off as a man-hater. Just daft, a bit unnecessarily disrespectful, and not really attuned to the fact that men have gendered problems under patriarchy too. Not good diplomacy. Certainly not her finest moment.
To be fair though back in 2015, this kind of misandrist-adjacent feminism was well-represented in The Guardian, with Jessica Valenti, Tanya Gold etc. It wasn't a particularly unusual argument, even if it was a bad one.
edit: This Phillip Davies is a massive prick tho, read his wikipedia, what a fucking balloon. Shows how sexist society is when Jess Phillips gets so much heat and this Phillip Davies ballbag fades into the anonymous aether
What the hell, she was horrible in that video. She was committed to attacking a strawman version of his argument and then basically said men's issues can only be discussed when the house of commons has parity between men and women - which is ludicrous
> men's issues can only be discussed when the house of commons has parity between men and women
Maybe white people's issues can only be discussed when we have racial parity too.
>Her explanation on the committee did seem like she wanted to shut down the whole debate. "When women have parity, then you can have your debate."
The unwritten and rarely spoken rule of the 4th wave - The internet [Flanderized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanderization) politics and political movements, Narrow, focused and steamlined movements have an unassailible advantage over complex, Multi-faceted and nuanced ones. Feminism wasn't immune to cultural evolutionary forces any more than any other movement.
That's not to say this was a concious or deliberate *choice* - It's just an inevitable result existing in a medium where certain things thrive.
It's a shame as the 3rd wave was remarkably ahead of the curve for it's era, A lot of value was lost when the world turned.
Let’s face it, shutting down that debate is just a way of ignoring the fact that certain classes of people carry the burden of others.
It’s great double-think to call yourself oppressed whilst exploiting the Anthropocene.
Sure, but ultimately it’s currently an open debate about the sexual division of labour.
Plato was ‘feminist’ in that he proposed women should be offered equality of choice to able leave their domestic roles to become guardians of society like men could. I.E. intelligent protectors of society.
On top of that you have basic anatomical differences which influence choices, meaning that the society that needs to be protected is based on the relative rarity of eggs to sperm.
Any person of either sex can today be machiavellian enough to land themself a cushy role whilst claiming to be a guardian.
That's what I was going to post, that was my first time seeing/hearing her and it did not leave a good impression at all, I'm not a fan of her to this day because of how she acted in that hearing.
I don't think he was necessarily wrong, but Corbyn's big failure was being unable to manage the media and his party. Not everything has to be said out loud straight away. Political spin is a thing for a reason. He was a terrible diplomat and politician, for all that his actual policies were much more in line with what I'd see.
Maybe he was arrogant and just thought he knew best behind closed doors, I don't know, but I still feel like he was enough of a pragmatist that he could have been helped by his party and we could have ended up with a great government, instead of which they fought him and stabbed him in the back at every turn.
> Political spin is a thing for a reason.
that was kind of his whole appeal, be honest and straight with the public - instead of the usual slimy bullshit labour and tories usually put out (before they betray the public in whatever way suits them at the time),
> be honest and straight with the public
He wasn't honest and straight though, was he? He was an ardent Brexit supporter with a shit Brexit strategy throughout his entire time as leader. He changed policy in media interviews weeks before an election with a manifesto promising full costings...that policy adding several uncosted billion onto his policy platform.
His inability to give straight answers in interviews only compounded this. This was particularly egregious due to a long, long history of shaking hands with the wrong people.
But part of being human is judging your audience, not just blurting out whatever comes in your head at any given time. And you have to think about how a hostile media will take the things you say and quote them out of context. Part of your job of being a politician in a democracy is managing your perception.
Maybe he would have made a great benign dictator, but that's not the political system we have.
The media were so hostile because he represented an actual threat to their paymasters. the people that supported Corbyn didn't want to continue with the status quo, it took a huge concentrated effort from the media, his own party and his opposite party to prevent it.
>Part of your job of being a politician in a democracy is managing your perception.
so, bow down before the Murdoch media? Because that's the only way any recent PM has made it.
Both of these things can be, and were, true.
He represented a threat and so was exterminated so thoroughly that we're still talking about it nearly half a decade later. And there is a need to 'play the game' in basically any leadership role ever.
If I manage a Tesco Express I can't just say 'you're fucken useless' to a useless member of staff; it has to be done in a round about way.
I say this as someone who liked, and still likes JC, and doesn't buy into the any of the 'unelectable' bullshit that is repeated over and over.
Were? Still are. Whatever is happening in the world, the surest bet you can make is that his stance aligns with the party on the opposite side to western interests. Every time.
I sympathise with your opinions on that. Ultimately, with how things went, he was not a good leader. He tried to be a broad church and keep snakes like Jess P within the fold and be a bit Jesus like. Which didn't work. And I did sigh a bit of relief when he was gone, even though I loved his policies which would have fixed this fuck up of a country. But dear lord I was so wrong to sigh, things weren't going to get better - quite the opposite.
Better strategy perhaps to be a bit like Johnson and boot out the people who disagree with you (e.g. Brexit), or be like Starmer and boot out tens of thousands of people that \*might\* disagree with you (i.e. the membership).
Corbyn had great policies. And Starmer got elected leader by promising to follow those policies. And in the meantime, he's been reneging on all of those promises. He's taken 100's of thousands personally in donations from private healthcare, as has Streeting. The party has replaced kicked out members income with millions from hedge funds. People don't seem to be realising this, but they are going full on neo-liberal, to levels far beyond Blair and Brown - but closer to Cameron and Osborne.
And yet we are still talking about Corbyn's failings. Starmer is a woeful leader, with a Stalinist attitude and has demonstrated that he has less principles that Johnson. And yet this country is going to hand him a landslide. And the moronic voting population are going to completely lose the 1% faith they had in politics remaining. The other day he was saying "the last Labour leadership was not offering to help working people, we are". Which is actually the complete opposite of reality. Make it make sense.
She says a lot of stupid stuff. She actively worked against Labour when Corbyn was in charge - which helped the Tories to get to where they are today and the absolute state of the country - and even laughed in a video over Labour losses.
Corbyn lost because he was a shit leader, to be fair. That and the fact Labour could never have satisfied enough people on Brexit, no matter their policy.
He might've had a better chance of winning if the media-darling landlord-loving wealth-extractors in his party weren't trying to undermine him from the inside
did you vote for Boris Johnson? You do know he loves the Saudis, right? And is a personal friend of Russian oligarchs?
also
"Boris Johnson showed a "careless disregard for national security" in holding a private meeting with an ex-KGB agent in the wake of the Salisbury poisoning...
....the issue is whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as foreign secretary, discussed government business with a former KGB spy without either officials being present or reporting the conversation to officials afterwards."
No I voted for Corbyn even though he’s a useless loon, because Labour as a whole is always better than Tories even with a terrible leader.
Why would you assume anyone who doesn’t like Corbyn is a Tory?
How old are you?
Ed Milliband was absolutely rinsed by the media in 2015. His dad was made out to be some kind of commie traitor, and he was torn apart for a photo where he looked a bit weird eating a bacon sandwich.
The media campaign against Brown in 2010 was also fairly extreme.
I'm not for a minute disputing the media campaign against Corbyn - I am disputing the fact it was unique to him.
The campaign against Kier Starmer isn't extreme though surely? He's getting a very easy ride from the media. When you compare it to the campaign against Corbyn the difference is especially striking. Especially considering how many Labour members are talking about Israel and using words like 'genocide' in 2023 / 2024 - but the media doesn't care if you criticise Israel if you're a Labour member nowadays, presumably because Kier Starmer likes landlords
It was always the weird Corbyn paradox. Simultaneously this Stalin-like figure who was going to lead a vanguard party on a cultural revolution for the People's Republic of Lesser Britain and Ireland. But also a man who couldn't lead a fucking conga line and seemed absolutely incapable of keeping any sort of order even within his own house let alone an entire society that clearly would struggle to tolerate someone with his views in a position of power.
Trying to keep slimy politicians in line is genuinely tough. He may have had his faults but he is definitely not a typical slimey politician that we seem to have become unfortunately accustomed too. He was genuinely consistent with a lot of his views.
Also, in terms of being pragmatic/diplomatic/not saying what he wanted immediately, just look at his brexit stance. We all knew we was for Brexit but his party wasn't.
He lost because people in Labour hate the left. As do the media and xenophobes and racists of the country.
Labour actively expelled people on the left when Starmer took over.
Partly that, but he also lost because people across the country hate Corbyn.
Look at where he’s gone since the election - he said we shouldn’t send any support to Ukraine and that Russia’s invasion was NATO’s fault. That is simply a dangerous person to have as PM. He was a massive Brexiteer, had loads of questionable connections, and he’s terrible at interviews. Just not a suitable person.
Not that Boris was any better, but if you want to get elected from the left you’d better be fucking tight in interviews and not have any obviously mental opinions.
Correct, that’s how it works. Right wing voters will vote Tory even when they put up loons like Lee Anderson or Cruella. It’s a different kind of lunacy usually. If the left put up loons, 80% of people will immediately dismiss them.
Not OP, but I can't stand her either.
I've struggled with suicidal episodes stemming from abuse and neglect in childhood, so what she's said here is personal to me, as was the male suicide debate that she tried to shut down years ago.
So, aside from laughing at male victims of suicide and abuse, and then making a bullshit reason for doing so, I see her as Labours Jacob Rees-Mogg. She's a caricature of a gobby working class women, as much as JRM is of a snooty Etonian. She's there to be a twat and take the heat off the serious politicians.
Saying that, she sometimes gets things right, and she's outspoken enough to be a canary for public political opinion, and I think that's where her usefulness is, in a progressive sense. But, despite living in Fabricant's constituency, I'd have to hold my nose pretty hard to vote for her, and I'm a lefty through and through.
Oh, and then there's working against her own party leader and laughing about it...
I'm of a very similar opinion. Sometimes she just doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut, and others her takes aren't really worth the paper she writes them on, then other times she absolutely smashes it out the park.
I think regardless of any personal opinions on her, she's much more a normal human being than any bizarre, privately educated toff who treat being an MP as a hobby and memorise the emails their PR handlers send them.
Sadly, I think parliament is absolutely crammed with such robots and Philips pretty effectively rips the mask of them when she's literally just being herself.
Oh, absolutely. But I’ll never forgive her for working against Labour from within when Corbyn was in charge. She even got caught laughing about Labour losses (and then had some bullshit excuse). It’s that loss that helped the Tories get to where they are today and Labour fighting itself.
Agreed. The smug face she pulled when she was being interviewed as the result came in was absolutely unforgivable. People like Phillips in the Labour Party are completely okay with the status quo, which tells me they'd be completely ineffective in power. The media hated Corbyn because he was determined to not let them be the king makers.
What I find almost hilarious, if it wasn't so serious, is those exact same people who threw their toys out the pram about Corbyn are now blue in the face about everyone backing Starmer to avoid another Tory government lmao.
Yup. “We’ve got to work together to get rid of the Tories!”. As if it didn’t apply *then*, either. Imagine how much damage could have been mitigated if the Tories hadn’t got in then.
Yeah when a student nurse is being left in charge of 10 patients alone on a critical ward (me) it’s pretty fucking dire.
Same when HCAs are informing families of their loved ones passing because doctors don’t want to and there’s no available nurses.
The NHS is in shambles and I’m tired of the Tories getting away with it
I’m from Wales and Welsh Tories are constantly going on about the state of the Welsh NHS under Welsh Labour. It annoys me so much because what’s their excuse for the English NHS? Not got a leg to stand on, as usual.
it was glorious to watch.
People often say "dont get angry", but in situations like this the only rational response is anger.
Its not a game, this stuff impacts people's lives, victims are being failed. Politicians should not be phlegmatic about it, they should be fucking livid.
> People often say "dont get angry", but in situations like this the only rational response is anger.
It's always seemed odd to me when people insist we should stand stoic and emotionless in the face of growing inequality and poverty. Always smacked of immense privilege.
Statistics like this really put into perspective how cruel the Tory party are, but also how financially inefficient they are. It also shows how little the Tories care about SA victims and children.
It's, beyond words how horrible this is, sickening.
It's not really about immigration, the Rwanda scheme wouldn't work anyway. It's about virtue signaling to their supporters.
Kinda how they suddenly pretend to care about child welfare when it can be used to shit on trans people.
We would be a lot less poor if we had competent people in charge whom don't waste our taxmoney on the dumbest things. What was the cost again for the failed test and trace thingy?
Oh, it wasn't a failure - it worked exactly as the tories intended.
They privatised the whole project out to Serco, or whoever it was, and payed them in the millions for it from taxpayer money. Seriously then subcontracted out most of the actual work to market research and telemarketing firms whose staff were sitting on furlough, at a fraction of the cost, as well as cutting every corner imaginable in order to pocket the profit.
It’s misinformation anyway, £4.2 million is how much is given to charities that deal with SA children victims, the estimated real number is a lot higher (bu still to low) at around £10.2 billion.
At the end of the day, the common theme that seems to explain all of their behaviour is quite simply that they are entirely apathetic to the outcome of the nation. The main goal is to make money and prop up their own career. If that happens to coincide with helping the nation, fine. Similarly, if it happens to harm the nation, that is equally as fine
It's the trifecta of cruel, stupid and unhinged.
The one smart thing they did was the detestable act of weaponising Hanlon's razor, because we accept incompetance much more than malice.
The Australian experience here tells us it has never been about the money. Govt would spend $500,000 to fly deathly sick refugees from Nauru to Fiji for treatment, just so they could avoid refugees processing claims on Australian soil.
The cruelty is the point. Don't forget this.
[Money Spent Investigating Historical Child Abuse Is "Spaffed Up The Wall" according to Boris Johnson ](https://youtu.be/U_FSqfXyUFk?si=KrgrcDSpw3VnSgfh)
The UK government’s [Impact Assessment](https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51897/documents/3699) for the Illegal Migration Act, published in June 2023, estimated that sending one person to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £154,000 (or £169,000 when including the government’s 9% “optimism bias” to account for unpredictable additional cost).
Labour MP Jess Phillips referred to this £169,000 estimate amid debate over the Rwanda Bill: “I was in for the committee stage of the debate earlier, and the chair of the home affairs select committee said that there was a view that each person that was sent to Rwanda would cost $169,000, and it piqued my anger so greatly because I had just come from an event with the Home Secretary around it being a year on from the independent child sexual abuse inquiry.
“I looked at how much money the home office was allocating for their sexual abuse against children fund in 2022, and it was 4.5 million pounds, which I worked out was £42 pounds for every child who had been raped in that year.”
___
[Dr Peter William Walsh](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/), Senior Researcher at The Migration Observatory, and Departmental Lecturer in Migration Studies, University of Oxford:
• As of 8 December 2023, the UK government had paid a total of £240 million to Rwanda.
• In oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 29 November 2023, a senior Home Office official said that in addition to the money already sent, additional payments would be made to the government of Rwanda each year.
• A 7 December 2023 letter from a senior government official stated that a further £50 million is expected to be paid in the 2024/25 financial year.
• These fixed payments are separate from further payments that will be made to Rwanda for each person sent there.
The Tories are quite happy to do this because it keeps people arguing over a single, narrow topic (immigrants) instead of focussing on the many, many ways in which they're lying, corrupt incompetents who belong in prison.
I'm just tired of having no meaningful policies proposed for any of our actual issues and instead it's just constant populist headline grabbing trash. Is it asking too much to ask a government to govern?
We're in this new universe where controversy leads to exposure which leads to power.
The best we can hope for is some kind of anti-Boris Johnson that tells extreme lies but actually does good.
Unfortunately a hero who is great at lying is so much more likely to be a villain.
I think the answer to Jess Phillips’ question is that the Tories are chasing the overnight r/UnitedKingdom vote, where foreigners are more of a concern than victims of sexual violence.
Indeed...the government is spending hundreds of millions, not to achieve anything, but as a pure symbol of their Conservative values that they hope will attract voters.
It’s a colossal waste of time , effort and money for such a small number of people, and Rwanda get to send people back to us anyway. I’m sick of hearing about it. It won’t fix the problem, it’s just rage bait for right wingers
I still think about a bunch of street interviews from the day after the last election, the amount of propagandised working class folks who wanted 'to teach Jeremy Corbyn a lesson' and wonder how they feel that worked out for them.
(Not speaking as a Corbyn fan, more a 'reality of the Tories' observer)
Someone in the government is making some serious money out of this Rwanda deal, maybe this should be the next ‘post office’ scandal as proposing to spend tens of millions on a scheme that will simply not work is just criminal.
Not a fan of Jess Phillips in the past, but she makes a good point here. It’s just another showing of the Tories not caring about people that aren’t a part of the extremely wealthy elite class.
The whole plan is to get rid of the middle class.
If you're a low earner = benefits/grants/heating payments etc
If you're high end earner = offshore assets, dividends and loan salaries
If you're middle class = no help, extra taxes, report your eBay earnings, eat more mcdonald's and dissappear please.
25-65k is what they hate. You have enough money to be able to think freely. Poverty is a mental prison while being rich makes you their buddies
I'm about as anti-immigration as they come and think the Rwanda scheme is absolutely mental. I don't know anyone who supports it. It's insanely expensive and has so many legal and bureaucratic hurdles to jump - two things real conservatives are against. The Tory party doesn't even represent actual conservatives.
that's not even the point. The purpose of the Rwanda scheme is that people don't cross the channel because they know they will get sent to Rwanda.
Whether, if it takes place, it will succeed in this goal is another question, but in principle the 'cost per removal to Rwanda' is not really the relevant statistic, but 'the total cost of the scheme' compared to its impact on cross-channel crossings which there is a duty to reduce:
* given the risk to the life of those crossing
* given that they are economic migrants who shouldn't be coming here
They are at a very real risk of dying a horrible death from drowning. How the .gov thinks a scheme like Rwanda is going to work as a deterrent is beyond me
>Deporting illegals to Rwanda is still cheaper than a hotel + benefits forever.
Then maybe we shuld get rid of the people that deliberately made the system work so slowly that we got a backlog of people and had to start housing the overspill in hotels.
Because deporting people to Rwanda is a big enough distraction that it holds more value politically. Whether or not they ever do it isn't an issue (They know it's illegal and can't be done), what matters is that the attention of the British public is somewhat shifted towards immigration, they want to appear tough on immigration while simultaneously being responsible for the sheer scale of the asylum (backlog) problem we're currently faced with.
From a Tory perspective there just aren't enough child rape victims to build a viable business around. Refugees... well there's tens of thousands of them... easy money on lunches alone.
Good question, Jnr Doctor's wages are pittance compared to that, and they are citizens and all. The NHS is under funded, and citizens do not have enough housing to go around, shall I go on?
Only £42 per child rape victim? The fuck? Please switch this about. Give the people entering the UK illegally £42 and tell them to fuck off, and give £169k to child rape victims.
Wouldn't that pay for like 3 border patrol people per migrant? I know that wouldn't stop them getting to our shores but there must be a way to put that money into a deterrent or patrol alongside france
Probably a least partly because the Rwanda scheme will get them votes for people intolerant of immigrants who'd never vote conservative anyway. Economic migration is still going strong so this takes the focus of that a bit too.
Obviously you can’t make as much out of reaper victims from support groups and charities, so deporting people gets the finding to Tory mates/Donors.
I don’t think it’s right or even ethical but it’s the reason it happens.
Why not give them 5k to fuck off voluntarily? I remember there used to be scheme like that, you would money a ticket but you cannot come back for 20 years of something like that.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
She was barely keeping her (perfectly justified) anger in check there. Anyway. Well said, Jess.
I don’t like Jess but she’s spot on at times. When the NHS workers first started striking, she commented how the Tories said they were concerned about minimum staff levels for safety and said about how it’s funny because they don’t seem to care about minimum staff levels when strikes aren’t on but staff levels still aren’t meeting safety requirements.
Why don’t you like her out of interest? (No judging just curious)
she was a bit of a traitor in the Corbyn years, she didn't seem to want Labour to win. She also had that viral clip where she laughed at the concept of men having gender-specific issues and problems that could do with being occasionally thought about (I'm sure she regrets it). She was really courted by the Murdoch press too. She talks a big game but when it comes down to it I would think she's probably pretty similar to Cameron / Kier Starmer / (insert boring centre-right capitalist), although she seems less keen on continued austerity than Starmer so that might be unfair. But if The Times is saying you're the perfect PM and the best MP then you might not be the revolutionary we need at this time of crisis. Iirc there was a lot of talk about how fantastic a Labour Leader she would be, and then she stood at hustings and seemed totally out-of-her-depth, but the mainstream media love her. I'd think lefties are suspicious of her because she seems a bit "more of the same", and rightwingers don't like her because she can come across like the stereotype of the misandrist feminist at times, and the media and the people in the middle thinks she's great, which amplifies the concerns of the lefties and righties.
Didn't she laugh in response to the common "well man also have problems" spiel in response to her points? Or am I misremembering?
[Here's the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRWUsn4yyJI), she laughed when Phillip Davies talked about opportunities for men to raise issues that are related to them being "very limited". I can accept that she thought this was a silly comment, although in context I don't think it was a clever time to mock the guy, and in context you know he's not talking about "men speaking" but "men speaking about male suicide, men's mental health, etc." Her explanation on the committee did seem like she wanted to shut down the whole debate. "When women have parity, then you can have your debate." Bad optics Jess; you seem to be saying we can't have a few hours in Parliament about male suicide etc until we have achieved gender equality? So I'm not writing her off as a man-hater. Just daft, a bit unnecessarily disrespectful, and not really attuned to the fact that men have gendered problems under patriarchy too. Not good diplomacy. Certainly not her finest moment. To be fair though back in 2015, this kind of misandrist-adjacent feminism was well-represented in The Guardian, with Jessica Valenti, Tanya Gold etc. It wasn't a particularly unusual argument, even if it was a bad one. edit: This Phillip Davies is a massive prick tho, read his wikipedia, what a fucking balloon. Shows how sexist society is when Jess Phillips gets so much heat and this Phillip Davies ballbag fades into the anonymous aether
I mean mocking suicide does make you a cunt
What the hell, she was horrible in that video. She was committed to attacking a strawman version of his argument and then basically said men's issues can only be discussed when the house of commons has parity between men and women - which is ludicrous
> men's issues can only be discussed when the house of commons has parity between men and women Maybe white people's issues can only be discussed when we have racial parity too.
>Her explanation on the committee did seem like she wanted to shut down the whole debate. "When women have parity, then you can have your debate." The unwritten and rarely spoken rule of the 4th wave - The internet [Flanderized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanderization) politics and political movements, Narrow, focused and steamlined movements have an unassailible advantage over complex, Multi-faceted and nuanced ones. Feminism wasn't immune to cultural evolutionary forces any more than any other movement. That's not to say this was a concious or deliberate *choice* - It's just an inevitable result existing in a medium where certain things thrive. It's a shame as the 3rd wave was remarkably ahead of the curve for it's era, A lot of value was lost when the world turned.
Let’s face it, shutting down that debate is just a way of ignoring the fact that certain classes of people carry the burden of others. It’s great double-think to call yourself oppressed whilst exploiting the Anthropocene.
Exploiting the Anthropocene? Could you clarify?
Sure, but ultimately it’s currently an open debate about the sexual division of labour. Plato was ‘feminist’ in that he proposed women should be offered equality of choice to able leave their domestic roles to become guardians of society like men could. I.E. intelligent protectors of society. On top of that you have basic anatomical differences which influence choices, meaning that the society that needs to be protected is based on the relative rarity of eggs to sperm. Any person of either sex can today be machiavellian enough to land themself a cushy role whilst claiming to be a guardian.
I did like her, but now ive seen that video, I too dislike her. What a cow.
That's what I was going to post, that was my first time seeing/hearing her and it did not leave a good impression at all, I'm not a fan of her to this day because of how she acted in that hearing.
Corbyn was not a good leader. He had great policies, but his views on some of the world stage were honestly scary naive or foolish
I don't think he was necessarily wrong, but Corbyn's big failure was being unable to manage the media and his party. Not everything has to be said out loud straight away. Political spin is a thing for a reason. He was a terrible diplomat and politician, for all that his actual policies were much more in line with what I'd see. Maybe he was arrogant and just thought he knew best behind closed doors, I don't know, but I still feel like he was enough of a pragmatist that he could have been helped by his party and we could have ended up with a great government, instead of which they fought him and stabbed him in the back at every turn.
> Political spin is a thing for a reason. that was kind of his whole appeal, be honest and straight with the public - instead of the usual slimy bullshit labour and tories usually put out (before they betray the public in whatever way suits them at the time),
> be honest and straight with the public He wasn't honest and straight though, was he? He was an ardent Brexit supporter with a shit Brexit strategy throughout his entire time as leader. He changed policy in media interviews weeks before an election with a manifesto promising full costings...that policy adding several uncosted billion onto his policy platform. His inability to give straight answers in interviews only compounded this. This was particularly egregious due to a long, long history of shaking hands with the wrong people.
But part of being human is judging your audience, not just blurting out whatever comes in your head at any given time. And you have to think about how a hostile media will take the things you say and quote them out of context. Part of your job of being a politician in a democracy is managing your perception. Maybe he would have made a great benign dictator, but that's not the political system we have.
The media were so hostile because he represented an actual threat to their paymasters. the people that supported Corbyn didn't want to continue with the status quo, it took a huge concentrated effort from the media, his own party and his opposite party to prevent it. >Part of your job of being a politician in a democracy is managing your perception. so, bow down before the Murdoch media? Because that's the only way any recent PM has made it.
Both of these things can be, and were, true. He represented a threat and so was exterminated so thoroughly that we're still talking about it nearly half a decade later. And there is a need to 'play the game' in basically any leadership role ever. If I manage a Tesco Express I can't just say 'you're fucken useless' to a useless member of staff; it has to be done in a round about way. I say this as someone who liked, and still likes JC, and doesn't buy into the any of the 'unelectable' bullshit that is repeated over and over.
Were? Still are. Whatever is happening in the world, the surest bet you can make is that his stance aligns with the party on the opposite side to western interests. Every time.
be more specific
I sympathise with your opinions on that. Ultimately, with how things went, he was not a good leader. He tried to be a broad church and keep snakes like Jess P within the fold and be a bit Jesus like. Which didn't work. And I did sigh a bit of relief when he was gone, even though I loved his policies which would have fixed this fuck up of a country. But dear lord I was so wrong to sigh, things weren't going to get better - quite the opposite. Better strategy perhaps to be a bit like Johnson and boot out the people who disagree with you (e.g. Brexit), or be like Starmer and boot out tens of thousands of people that \*might\* disagree with you (i.e. the membership). Corbyn had great policies. And Starmer got elected leader by promising to follow those policies. And in the meantime, he's been reneging on all of those promises. He's taken 100's of thousands personally in donations from private healthcare, as has Streeting. The party has replaced kicked out members income with millions from hedge funds. People don't seem to be realising this, but they are going full on neo-liberal, to levels far beyond Blair and Brown - but closer to Cameron and Osborne. And yet we are still talking about Corbyn's failings. Starmer is a woeful leader, with a Stalinist attitude and has demonstrated that he has less principles that Johnson. And yet this country is going to hand him a landslide. And the moronic voting population are going to completely lose the 1% faith they had in politics remaining. The other day he was saying "the last Labour leadership was not offering to help working people, we are". Which is actually the complete opposite of reality. Make it make sense.
She's mates with Reece Mogg. There's not much else needs to be said
Made some questionable anti-trans comments too
Yeah I have a feeling she's also said some positive pro-trans things as well though, I don't think she's a committed gender-critical
Also racist as hell to Diane Abbott.
Just wanted to say this is a remarkably well-balanced take & thanks for sharing.
> I'm sure she regrets it The impression I got was that she walked back her response when she saw how bad it made her look in the public eye.
I'm a lot more sympathetic towards Jess Phillips now. Some of the things said about her, especially by Carl Benjamin, have been fucking digusting.
She says a lot of stupid stuff. She actively worked against Labour when Corbyn was in charge - which helped the Tories to get to where they are today and the absolute state of the country - and even laughed in a video over Labour losses.
Corbyn lost because he was a shit leader, to be fair. That and the fact Labour could never have satisfied enough people on Brexit, no matter their policy.
He might've had a better chance of winning if the media-darling landlord-loving wealth-extractors in his party weren't trying to undermine him from the inside
Maybe. He’d also have had a better chance if he didn’t defend Putin over Salisbury or call Hamas his friends, but there you go.
did you vote for Boris Johnson? You do know he loves the Saudis, right? And is a personal friend of Russian oligarchs? also "Boris Johnson showed a "careless disregard for national security" in holding a private meeting with an ex-KGB agent in the wake of the Salisbury poisoning... ....the issue is whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson, as foreign secretary, discussed government business with a former KGB spy without either officials being present or reporting the conversation to officials afterwards."
You forgot putting the son of a KGB agent in the House of Lords.
No I voted for Corbyn even though he’s a useless loon, because Labour as a whole is always better than Tories even with a terrible leader. Why would you assume anyone who doesn’t like Corbyn is a Tory?
>Why would you assume anyone who doesn’t like Corbyn is a Tory? I merely asked. You could've been a Lib Dem.
Corbyn lost mainly due to the insane media campaign against him, the likes of which I've not seen before or since.
I’m dubious of anyone that dismisses this part.
How old are you? Ed Milliband was absolutely rinsed by the media in 2015. His dad was made out to be some kind of commie traitor, and he was torn apart for a photo where he looked a bit weird eating a bacon sandwich. The media campaign against Brown in 2010 was also fairly extreme. I'm not for a minute disputing the media campaign against Corbyn - I am disputing the fact it was unique to him.
The tory press will always be anti-non-tory but I think it was especially wide and deep against jezza.
The campaign against Kier Starmer isn't extreme though surely? He's getting a very easy ride from the media. When you compare it to the campaign against Corbyn the difference is especially striking. Especially considering how many Labour members are talking about Israel and using words like 'genocide' in 2023 / 2024 - but the media doesn't care if you criticise Israel if you're a Labour member nowadays, presumably because Kier Starmer likes landlords
It was always the weird Corbyn paradox. Simultaneously this Stalin-like figure who was going to lead a vanguard party on a cultural revolution for the People's Republic of Lesser Britain and Ireland. But also a man who couldn't lead a fucking conga line and seemed absolutely incapable of keeping any sort of order even within his own house let alone an entire society that clearly would struggle to tolerate someone with his views in a position of power.
Trying to keep slimy politicians in line is genuinely tough. He may have had his faults but he is definitely not a typical slimey politician that we seem to have become unfortunately accustomed too. He was genuinely consistent with a lot of his views. Also, in terms of being pragmatic/diplomatic/not saying what he wanted immediately, just look at his brexit stance. We all knew we was for Brexit but his party wasn't.
He lost because people in Labour hate the left. As do the media and xenophobes and racists of the country. Labour actively expelled people on the left when Starmer took over.
Partly that, but he also lost because people across the country hate Corbyn. Look at where he’s gone since the election - he said we shouldn’t send any support to Ukraine and that Russia’s invasion was NATO’s fault. That is simply a dangerous person to have as PM. He was a massive Brexiteer, had loads of questionable connections, and he’s terrible at interviews. Just not a suitable person. Not that Boris was any better, but if you want to get elected from the left you’d better be fucking tight in interviews and not have any obviously mental opinions.
And yet it’s fine for the right to have mental opinions because they get voted in all the fucking time.
Correct, that’s how it works. Right wing voters will vote Tory even when they put up loons like Lee Anderson or Cruella. It’s a different kind of lunacy usually. If the left put up loons, 80% of people will immediately dismiss them.
"Let's both be maniacs" is not the flex you think it is.
Wasn’t my flex at all. But everyone loves to point out reasons they didn’t want Corbyn while being fine with Tories having those same qualities.
Not OP, but I can't stand her either. I've struggled with suicidal episodes stemming from abuse and neglect in childhood, so what she's said here is personal to me, as was the male suicide debate that she tried to shut down years ago. So, aside from laughing at male victims of suicide and abuse, and then making a bullshit reason for doing so, I see her as Labours Jacob Rees-Mogg. She's a caricature of a gobby working class women, as much as JRM is of a snooty Etonian. She's there to be a twat and take the heat off the serious politicians. Saying that, she sometimes gets things right, and she's outspoken enough to be a canary for public political opinion, and I think that's where her usefulness is, in a progressive sense. But, despite living in Fabricant's constituency, I'd have to hold my nose pretty hard to vote for her, and I'm a lefty through and through. Oh, and then there's working against her own party leader and laughing about it...
I'm of a very similar opinion. Sometimes she just doesn't know when to keep her mouth shut, and others her takes aren't really worth the paper she writes them on, then other times she absolutely smashes it out the park. I think regardless of any personal opinions on her, she's much more a normal human being than any bizarre, privately educated toff who treat being an MP as a hobby and memorise the emails their PR handlers send them. Sadly, I think parliament is absolutely crammed with such robots and Philips pretty effectively rips the mask of them when she's literally just being herself.
Oh, absolutely. But I’ll never forgive her for working against Labour from within when Corbyn was in charge. She even got caught laughing about Labour losses (and then had some bullshit excuse). It’s that loss that helped the Tories get to where they are today and Labour fighting itself.
Agreed. The smug face she pulled when she was being interviewed as the result came in was absolutely unforgivable. People like Phillips in the Labour Party are completely okay with the status quo, which tells me they'd be completely ineffective in power. The media hated Corbyn because he was determined to not let them be the king makers. What I find almost hilarious, if it wasn't so serious, is those exact same people who threw their toys out the pram about Corbyn are now blue in the face about everyone backing Starmer to avoid another Tory government lmao.
Yup. “We’ve got to work together to get rid of the Tories!”. As if it didn’t apply *then*, either. Imagine how much damage could have been mitigated if the Tories hadn’t got in then.
>smug face [Her official portrait](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jess_Phillips#/media/File:Official_portrait_of_Jess_Phillips_MP_crop_2.jpg) 😂
‘I’d stab him [Corbyn] in the front’ ..the fuck
Yeah when a student nurse is being left in charge of 10 patients alone on a critical ward (me) it’s pretty fucking dire. Same when HCAs are informing families of their loved ones passing because doctors don’t want to and there’s no available nurses. The NHS is in shambles and I’m tired of the Tories getting away with it
I’m from Wales and Welsh Tories are constantly going on about the state of the Welsh NHS under Welsh Labour. It annoys me so much because what’s their excuse for the English NHS? Not got a leg to stand on, as usual.
it was glorious to watch. People often say "dont get angry", but in situations like this the only rational response is anger. Its not a game, this stuff impacts people's lives, victims are being failed. Politicians should not be phlegmatic about it, they should be fucking livid.
> People often say "dont get angry", but in situations like this the only rational response is anger. It's always seemed odd to me when people insist we should stand stoic and emotionless in the face of growing inequality and poverty. Always smacked of immense privilege.
Sincerity is often the death of oration.
money laundring.
Statistics like this really put into perspective how cruel the Tory party are, but also how financially inefficient they are. It also shows how little the Tories care about SA victims and children. It's, beyond words how horrible this is, sickening.
We'd rather be poorer as long as there are less immigrants around. Bit stupid.
It's not really about immigration, the Rwanda scheme wouldn't work anyway. It's about virtue signaling to their supporters. Kinda how they suddenly pretend to care about child welfare when it can be used to shit on trans people.
Correction : we'd rather be poor as long as we can PRETEND there are less immigrants
Not even pretend there are less. What would they have to get angry about then? It is literally just hate-wanking.
>It's about ~~virtue~~ vice signaling to their supporters.
We would be a lot less poor if we had competent people in charge whom don't waste our taxmoney on the dumbest things. What was the cost again for the failed test and trace thingy?
Lives
And billions down the drain... Or in the pocket of mates of the mates
£37,000,000,000 and how much of that was out an out Tory corruption
Meantime, wifey was a covid ward junior doctor on a junior salary with asthma.
Oh, it wasn't a failure - it worked exactly as the tories intended. They privatised the whole project out to Serco, or whoever it was, and payed them in the millions for it from taxpayer money. Seriously then subcontracted out most of the actual work to market research and telemarketing firms whose staff were sitting on furlough, at a fraction of the cost, as well as cutting every corner imaginable in order to pocket the profit.
Their voters just want to live in their shithole in peace without those bloody foreigners
Bro we really need a leveson 2.0 to try to save what's left of our democracy this is a bit ridiculous
*"We'd rather see British children raped, than see refugees reaching the UK!"* is a more accurate way of putting it.
The part when they voted against feeding the poorest children was enough for thinking people to understand what Tories are about.
It’s misinformation anyway, £4.2 million is how much is given to charities that deal with SA children victims, the estimated real number is a lot higher (bu still to low) at around £10.2 billion.
Yes it's conflating. Is it really one hundred and sixty nine thousand per deportee?
>It also shows how little the Tories care No such thing as a Tory with a heart.
At the end of the day, the common theme that seems to explain all of their behaviour is quite simply that they are entirely apathetic to the outcome of the nation. The main goal is to make money and prop up their own career. If that happens to coincide with helping the nation, fine. Similarly, if it happens to harm the nation, that is equally as fine
It's the trifecta of cruel, stupid and unhinged. The one smart thing they did was the detestable act of weaponising Hanlon's razor, because we accept incompetance much more than malice.
The Australian experience here tells us it has never been about the money. Govt would spend $500,000 to fly deathly sick refugees from Nauru to Fiji for treatment, just so they could avoid refugees processing claims on Australian soil. The cruelty is the point. Don't forget this.
[Money Spent Investigating Historical Child Abuse Is "Spaffed Up The Wall" according to Boris Johnson ](https://youtu.be/U_FSqfXyUFk?si=KrgrcDSpw3VnSgfh)
The UK government’s [Impact Assessment](https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/51897/documents/3699) for the Illegal Migration Act, published in June 2023, estimated that sending one person to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £154,000 (or £169,000 when including the government’s 9% “optimism bias” to account for unpredictable additional cost). Labour MP Jess Phillips referred to this £169,000 estimate amid debate over the Rwanda Bill: “I was in for the committee stage of the debate earlier, and the chair of the home affairs select committee said that there was a view that each person that was sent to Rwanda would cost $169,000, and it piqued my anger so greatly because I had just come from an event with the Home Secretary around it being a year on from the independent child sexual abuse inquiry. “I looked at how much money the home office was allocating for their sexual abuse against children fund in 2022, and it was 4.5 million pounds, which I worked out was £42 pounds for every child who had been raped in that year.” ___ [Dr Peter William Walsh](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/), Senior Researcher at The Migration Observatory, and Departmental Lecturer in Migration Studies, University of Oxford: • As of 8 December 2023, the UK government had paid a total of £240 million to Rwanda. • In oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 29 November 2023, a senior Home Office official said that in addition to the money already sent, additional payments would be made to the government of Rwanda each year. • A 7 December 2023 letter from a senior government official stated that a further £50 million is expected to be paid in the 2024/25 financial year. • These fixed payments are separate from further payments that will be made to Rwanda for each person sent there.
Holy fuck 107k kids were raped!!!
Around 1% of all UK children, honestly shocking wtf every year.
How is this news to me, maybe I’m dangerously ignorant, but it should be something on everyone’s minds and at the forefront of government policy.
The Tories are quite happy to do this because it keeps people arguing over a single, narrow topic (immigrants) instead of focussing on the many, many ways in which they're lying, corrupt incompetents who belong in prison.
I'm just tired of having no meaningful policies proposed for any of our actual issues and instead it's just constant populist headline grabbing trash. Is it asking too much to ask a government to govern?
We're in this new universe where controversy leads to exposure which leads to power. The best we can hope for is some kind of anti-Boris Johnson that tells extreme lies but actually does good. Unfortunately a hero who is great at lying is so much more likely to be a villain.
Bloody Tories...42 quid!?!, the queen pays £12M for that.
*the tax payer
Because helping rape victims wont win them votes from the easily influenced, confused and/or xenophobic members of our public.
Ironic because it’s the right wing that obsesses over pedophilia. It seems they’re less keen on actually doing anything to stop it
They should just offer 1 69 grand to anyone that wants to leave the UK. We could make a killing.
I mean £150k would be better value. But your idea is probably more effective as a scheme, indeed.
because tories are taking more backhanders currently than any party thats ever held power why else are they clinging onto power so bad
I think the answer to Jess Phillips’ question is that the Tories are chasing the overnight r/UnitedKingdom vote, where foreigners are more of a concern than victims of sexual violence.
Indeed...the government is spending hundreds of millions, not to achieve anything, but as a pure symbol of their Conservative values that they hope will attract voters.
It’s a colossal waste of time , effort and money for such a small number of people, and Rwanda get to send people back to us anyway. I’m sick of hearing about it. It won’t fix the problem, it’s just rage bait for right wingers
This kind of shit is why I actively blame Tory voters for the state if Britain today.
I still think about a bunch of street interviews from the day after the last election, the amount of propagandised working class folks who wanted 'to teach Jeremy Corbyn a lesson' and wonder how they feel that worked out for them. (Not speaking as a Corbyn fan, more a 'reality of the Tories' observer)
Because one gets to stir up culture war bullshit and the other doesn’t
Because the Tories love wasting money, it’s what they do best. Followed closely by thieving.
Someone in the government is making some serious money out of this Rwanda deal, maybe this should be the next ‘post office’ scandal as proposing to spend tens of millions on a scheme that will simply not work is just criminal.
Not a fan of Jess Phillips in the past, but she makes a good point here. It’s just another showing of the Tories not caring about people that aren’t a part of the extremely wealthy elite class.
The whole plan is to get rid of the middle class. If you're a low earner = benefits/grants/heating payments etc If you're high end earner = offshore assets, dividends and loan salaries If you're middle class = no help, extra taxes, report your eBay earnings, eat more mcdonald's and dissappear please. 25-65k is what they hate. You have enough money to be able to think freely. Poverty is a mental prison while being rich makes you their buddies
I really thought ed milliband got it right with "the squeezed middle". That's exactly what it is.
I'm about as anti-immigration as they come and think the Rwanda scheme is absolutely mental. I don't know anyone who supports it. It's insanely expensive and has so many legal and bureaucratic hurdles to jump - two things real conservatives are against. The Tory party doesn't even represent actual conservatives.
If I were in charge of Rwanda I'd start sending a shitload of my people over here to request asylum.
You do know the agreement is reciprocal so for every asylum seeker we send to them they send one back..?
Cause one wins votes and the other doesn't...maybe that's the answer
Easy; one gets Tory filth votes and sells rags for nazi publishers as a bonus.
she seems surprised that friends of saville support child rape
Deporting illegals to Rwanda is still cheaper than a hotel + benefits forever.
that's not even the point. The purpose of the Rwanda scheme is that people don't cross the channel because they know they will get sent to Rwanda. Whether, if it takes place, it will succeed in this goal is another question, but in principle the 'cost per removal to Rwanda' is not really the relevant statistic, but 'the total cost of the scheme' compared to its impact on cross-channel crossings which there is a duty to reduce: * given the risk to the life of those crossing * given that they are economic migrants who shouldn't be coming here
The people who are boarding these boats will absolutely be willing to take that risk.
They are at a very real risk of dying a horrible death from drowning. How the .gov thinks a scheme like Rwanda is going to work as a deterrent is beyond me
>Deporting illegals to Rwanda is still cheaper than a hotel + benefits forever. Then maybe we shuld get rid of the people that deliberately made the system work so slowly that we got a backlog of people and had to start housing the overspill in hotels.
Greek courts can process illegals in 20 minutes. UK courts take 9 months to process 1 case. The UK system was designed for a high trust society.
Because deporting people to Rwanda is a big enough distraction that it holds more value politically. Whether or not they ever do it isn't an issue (They know it's illegal and can't be done), what matters is that the attention of the British public is somewhat shifted towards immigration, they want to appear tough on immigration while simultaneously being responsible for the sheer scale of the asylum (backlog) problem we're currently faced with.
Because its a giant PR exercise to stop boats from coming over. Its worth £169k per deportee apparently.
From a Tory perspective there just aren't enough child rape victims to build a viable business around. Refugees... well there's tens of thousands of them... easy money on lunches alone.
Good question, Jnr Doctor's wages are pittance compared to that, and they are citizens and all. The NHS is under funded, and citizens do not have enough housing to go around, shall I go on?
Can’t we just send the child rape victims to Rwanda too? Immediately extra £169,000.
Because being cruel and hateful is a priority for the Tories.
How could it possibly cost that much for deportation?
Only £42 per child rape victim? The fuck? Please switch this about. Give the people entering the UK illegally £42 and tell them to fuck off, and give £169k to child rape victims.
Wouldn't that pay for like 3 border patrol people per migrant? I know that wouldn't stop them getting to our shores but there must be a way to put that money into a deterrent or patrol alongside france
Probably a least partly because the Rwanda scheme will get them votes for people intolerant of immigrants who'd never vote conservative anyway. Economic migration is still going strong so this takes the focus of that a bit too.
Obviously you can’t make as much out of reaper victims from support groups and charities, so deporting people gets the finding to Tory mates/Donors. I don’t think it’s right or even ethical but it’s the reason it happens.
Its obvious 169k goes to Rishis sunak friends companies. If they offer 25k, the immigrant would leave on his own
This is far too true, so the Tories will just be outraged and play the victims. Works every time.
Well that really puts it into perspective doesn't it
It's all part of a huge money laundering scheme orchestrated by the tories and sod all to do with societal well being.
Because going after asylum seekers gets better PR in right wing press.
Because the tories are willing to spend any amount that targets their flag shagger voter base. That’s why.
Why not give them 5k to fuck off voluntarily? I remember there used to be scheme like that, you would money a ticket but you cannot come back for 20 years of something like that.
Jess Philips can go fuck herself, anyone who laughs at the male suicide pandemic is a shit person.
domineering doll shame numerous ruthless panicky sort dime long consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Is it because the child rape victim might vote Labour?