UK General Election 2024 - July 4th

How are you likely to vote?


  • Total voters
    67
Those clickbait style adverts are really selling the quality
They got hustle
Screenshot-20240625-095334.png
 
Reeves is the kind of mindless technocrat who stands for absolutely nothing except "competency". it's such a red flag that Starmer has made her his number two.
Basically my thought process. I’ve seen her being interviewed several times and she just recycles the same jargon over and over, honestly she comes across as if she’s an AI politician.

What about Angela Rayner? Has opinion soured on her?
 
The Labour campaign re: LGBTQ+ is such mixed messaging. On one hand the official policies are pretty sweet (unless I've missed something), but the statements and actions are still trying to please everyone. It's a week away guys, you're gonna win, you can just let the positive policies sit and do their work. Meeting JK Rowling to cement that all important TERF vote, isn't remotely necessary and potentially negates the good. And it's actually just evil.
 
It's classic bullshit tho' - "we'd be willing to meet with her" is essentially neutral; it's not endorsement, it's not rejection. And that's Labour all over right now - they stand for absolutely fuck all. It's all potentially this and willing to that - there's no substance. If ever they could have afforded to be bold, it's now - the polls have barely moved apart from Farage boosting Reform and they could have really had a vision for improving the UK and getting us back from the withered husk the Tories have left after 14 years. But no, it's all tiptoe tiptoe, don't upset the billionaires, don't upset the terfs, don't upset the Tories.

In the doing so, they legitimise so much horseshit. Rowling should be told that her ill-founded opinions are one thing but science, medicine and government policy do not bend to them. But no, gently gently guys, don't upset the fascists. Labour are cunts and I want at least 50% of the shadow cabinet dead in a ditch.
 
It's classic bullshit tho' - "we'd be willing to meet with her" is essentially neutral; it's not endorsement, it's not rejection. And that's Labour all over right now - they stand for absolutely fuck all. It's all potentially this and willing to that - there's no substance. If ever they could have afforded to be bold, it's now - the polls have barely moved apart from Farage boosting Reform and they could have really had a vision for improving the UK and getting us back from the withered husk the Tories have left after 14 years. But no, it's all tiptoe tiptoe, don't upset the billionaires, don't upset the terfs, don't upset the Tories.

In the doing so, they legitimise so much horseshit. Rowling should be told that her ill-founded opinions are one thing but science, medicine and government policy do not bend to them. But no, gently gently guys, don't upset the fascists. Labour are cunts and I want at least 50% of the shadow cabinet dead in a ditch.

Starmer is absolutely shitting making a wrong step to the point its actually putting people off. I still do feel he’ll be more radical, or at least start standing for SOMETHING post election as I’ve been reading a lot about him, but at what point does careful cross over into spineless?
 
Why the FUCK does anybody need to meet with JK ROWLING over anything? Jesus fucking Christ she’s really not important in any capacity aside from ensuring she’s in receipt of Harry Potter royalties.
 
I don't think Angela Rayner has impressed in the debates, but she's quite obviously been briefed to tone down a lot of the things that make her come across as a likeable and relatable human being. Hopefully, that won't continue if/when Labour is in power, but I do worry they're so eager to draw a line under "personality politics" that everyone is going to seem a bit DOUR. Having a personality is fine, so long as it doesn't come at the expense of - or indeed, entirely replaces - competence.
 
that's the worst part. meet her... why? :D she's influential only as a bigot on twitter. she's not important in any sphere related to government or frankly the wider culture. she's only in the news because the right wing media have an anti-trans agenda. stop legitimising them and don't give her a platform!
 
that's the worst part. meet her... why? :D she's influential only as a bigot on twitter. she's not important in any sphere related to government or frankly the wider culture. she's only in the news because the right wing media have an anti-trans agenda. stop legitimising them and don't give her a platform!

I think I disagree with this. She just isn’t relevant to us as being opposed to her ideology. Would we ever kick off in this way about them meeting with a trans activist? No.

I don’t agree with them meeting with her, cause she’s a rotten cunt, but I don’t think we can say she’s not relevant or important. She is basically seen as a leader by a massive amount of people.
 
a leader in WHAT! she's really NOT. she's an author who is widely perceived as having trashed her own reputation. her current literary output isn't bestselling and the last entry was widely and rightly panned for having zero literary quality and being filled with fictional hate tweets. why is she being looked to as a thought leader? purely because the right wing media have this culture war agenda to push. if she wasn't famously anti-trans nobody would be talking about her exception once a year when some Potter gossip occurred.

also who are these "massive amounts of people"? anyone i speak to in real life when her name comes up falls into two categories - they know she's a terf and hate her or they don't know she's a terf and have no particular opinion of her. I don't think that's my echo chamber at play. who are these masses who look to her as a leader?

the idea that she's just not relevant to us because we don't agree with her is insane bothsides-ism. she's just a woman who got rich writing a popular book series. culture has moved on.
 
a leader in WHAT! she's really NOT. she's an author who is widely perceived as having trashed her own reputation. her current literary output isn't bestselling and the last entry was widely and rightly panned for having zero literary quality and being filled with fictional hate tweets. why is she being looked to as a thought leader? purely because the right wing media have this culture war agenda to push. if she wasn't famously anti-trans nobody would be talking about her exception once a year when some Potter gossip occurred.

also who are these "massive amounts of people"? anyone i speak to in real life when her name comes up falls into two categories - they know she's a terf and hate her or they don't know she's a terf and have no particular opinion of her. I don't think that's my echo chamber at play. who are these masses who look to her as a leader?

the idea that she's just not relevant to us because we don't agree with her is insane bothsides-ism. she's just a woman who got rich writing a popular book series. culture has moved on.

She does, unfortunately, have a large following on social thanks to her views.
 
I'd agree that Joanne's stance on trans rights is widely known, but I'm not convinced the constant dribble of bile she spews on social media necessarily cuts through to the same extent. I think she's been quite careful to lead from behind so that when she does put her head above the parapet, the mainstream media still regard it as "news".
 
I'd agree that Joanne's stance on trans rights is widely known, but I'm not convinced the constant dribble of bile she spews on social media necessarily cuts through to the same extent. I think she's been quite careful to lead from behind so that when she does put her head above the parapet, the mainstream media still regard it as "news".
It was headline news on BBC just mere days ago. She's no different to the other bigots who spout this nonsense, but the media pays more attention because she's famous and a billionaire.
 
a leader in WHAT! she's really NOT. she's an author who is widely perceived as having trashed her own reputation. her current literary output isn't bestselling and the last entry was widely and rightly panned for having zero literary quality and being filled with fictional hate tweets. why is she being looked to as a thought leader? purely because the right wing media have this culture war agenda to push. if she wasn't famously anti-trans nobody would be talking about her exception once a year when some Potter gossip occurred.

also who are these "massive amounts of people"? anyone i speak to in real life when her name comes up falls into two categories - they know she's a terf and hate her or they don't know she's a terf and have no particular opinion of her. I don't think that's my echo chamber at play. who are these masses who look to her as a leader?

the idea that she's just not relevant to us because we don't agree with her is insane bothsides-ism. she's just a woman who got rich writing a popular book series. culture has moved on.

You’re entirely missing my point, it doesn’t MATTER what WE think or whether she’s actually a leader or what she’s done. She’s seen as such by many. And we live in a bubble where we don’t come across many with these reactions.

I’m not saying I agree AT ALL, but to dismiss her relevance to a certain amount of people is just nonsense.

You’re here saying “all she’s done is write a book” and then calling Jessie Ware “mother of all mothers” in the same breath. Think about that for a second!
 
I suppose the question is what victory comes from this meeting?

Her self-declared stance is that trans women are men and trans rights are rapists' rights. When Labour's manifesto is promising self ID, which she campaigns against, they're not getting an endorsement from her without reneging on that, are they?

All this meeting does is drag out the JK Rowling says Labour don't know what a woman is headline over TWO NEWS CYCLES rather than one.
 
Rowling gets press because she's a billionaire. That's it.

If the first Potter film had flopped, she would still be wealthy but she got rich off the film and merch rights rather than the books. She would be nowhere near as newsworthy in 2024 without the films, the spin-offs, the clothing, toys etc because that's what made her a real celebrity and also what got her a seat at the billionaires table. She has generated wealth and that makes her important to capitalism and that's how the hierarchy is generated. That she has become so rich by creaming hundreds of millions off of other people's work, ranging from actors to the people who make branded Harry Potter pyjamas in sweatshops in Bangladesh for is often elided because her books were undoubtedly hugely successful. But capitalism loves a grifter.
 
Sorry, I hate the cunt, but the revisionism in here is ridiculous!

What next, Shakespeare success not valid cause he didn’t live to see Baz Luhrmann’s version of Romeo and Juliet?

COME ON! :D
 
There's no revisionism at all. I didn't say her success wasn't valid. The books were huge. But they weren't billionaire huge because no book ever is. Her extreme wealth has been from toys, merchandise and her chunk for allowing the films to happen. She would always have been beyond comfortable and into the realms of rich, but she'd have been, like, Gary Barlow rich, not a billionaire. Does Jacqueline Wilson get her opinions onto the front page of The Times? Why's that then?
 
She was hugely successful but before the trans stuff and after Harry Potter, all she did was tweet support left wing policies and drip drop deeply uninteresting Harry Potter tit bits. She was very famous, but she wasn't exactly doing THAT MUCH, aside from free bleeding on her yacht.
 
I think I disagree with this. She just isn’t relevant to us as being opposed to her ideology. Would we ever kick off in this way about them meeting with a trans activist? No.

Honey you don’t ALWAYS have to play devil’s advocate!
 
Actually I'm not watching C4. I'll swap between BBC and Sky, whilst rabidly checking Twitter.
 
This idea that political leaders will meet with Joanne disgusts me.

What is she a leader in? I understand that she’s popular and has influence but she has no official role in transgender rights or ANY rights for that matter. She signs off on how Harry Potter can be used on lunchboxes and mugs. THAT’S IT.

So basically anyone who spouts nasty things with a following should get a private meeting to discuss their thoughts? Should Kier meet with Katie Hopkins to discuss immigration? How about Andrew Tate, he’s got a lot of strong feelings about women’s rights…
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom