UK Politics General Discussion

[Plastic Person]

George Harrison was being taxed 95% when he wrote this. He was worth $400 million when he died forty years later. Anybody whinging against wealth redistribution or preaching the benefits of trickle-down economics would do well to pair it with a bass line this good.

 

[Smiley]

Saying someone is taxed 43% is a fallacy in this country, you don’t pay the upper tax band on the entire earnings and often higher earners are not on PAYE so can use tax breaks.

You've already answered the question! The more you tax people, the more they will avoid it. People in the higher bracket pay 47%. Basically half. Tell me it's not enough???

These people are the wealth creators, the employers, the people that bring in most tax receipts to keep the country going. See how that goes when you piss them off too much!

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

These people are the wealth creators

They're not wealth creators, they're wealth hoarders. The wealth isn't created, it's accumulated from elsewhere and then held on to.

 

[Matt N]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the very principle of successful capitalism is predicated on the movement of wealth.

So the wealthy hoarding money instead of allowing it to move actually goes against capitalism!

 

[tayspru]

You've already answered the question! The more you tax people, the more they will avoid it. People in the higher bracket pay 47%. Basically half. Tell me it's not enough???

These people are the wealth creators, the employers, the people that bring in most tax receipts to keep the country going. See how that goes when you piss them off too much!

But they’re not paying “basically half” of their earnings into tax, they’re paying half of what comes in over the threshold. If you’re going to bellyache about how hard life is on your salary that warrants such a large tax bill, at least don’t obfuscate the truth

 

[Dave]

You've already answered the question! The more you tax people, the more they will avoid it. People in the higher bracket pay 47%. Basically half. Tell me it's not enough???

These people are the wealth creators, the employers, the people that bring in most tax receipts to keep the country going. See how that goes when you piss them off too much!

They don’t pay 47%, I just evidenced someone earning over £2 million paying 23% on that earning.

Even on PAYE you don’t pay your highest tax rate on your whole earnings, so your overall tax rate is lower than the headline figure. And those not on PAYE then apply hundreds of tax avoidance techniques to lower their rate.

In my opinion the richest people shouldn’t be able to manipulate their tax rate to lower than the poorest people, it’s immoral to suggest otherwise. And being a citizen of the country should mean you pay tax no matter whether you choose to live here or not.

Also these people don’t create wealth, they collect it. Working people create wealth and move money through the economy.

As for the welfare changes, we needed something to support people who can work into work and there are some traps in the existing system but broadly I think this change is disgusting.

 

[Dobba]

Who could have seen putting a Chancellor who has bragged about wanting to be "tougher than the Tories on welfare" and how her Labour Party didn't want to even look to be representing people out of work for over a decade would lead to a government tougher than the Tories on welfare and treating those in receipt of benefits as second class citizens.

Still, you all GTTO amirite?

 

[rob666]

Had to translate again.
For the old folk, and less informed...
Get the Tories out...
Am I correct?

Whatever happened to plain english when winding people up?

There is still no magic money tree.

Uncle Donald says we are all scrounging Europeans and need to pay for our own bullets.

 

[Dobba]

There is still no magic money tree.

There is, it's dropping £3bn a year for Ukraine from now until god knows when.

 

[Benzin]

Surely that £3bn comes from the money saved by Brexit and not sending it to the EU?

 

[AT86]

Wasn’t sure if this one belonged in the Toxicator thread, or the politics one, but anyway - when worlds collide….


From: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHeLWsaoDS7/?igsh=MWtud3lyeWszZzR2cg==

 

[Matt N]

There was a thread on Gender Identity previously, but that was locked, so I feel that this is potentially the more appropriate place to discuss what I’m about to discuss.

This isn’t a political development per se, but in the last couple of days, there has been a landmark ruling that could potentially have interesting ramifications on the UK’s political landscape. The ambiguity surrounding gender, which has been a political football for a number of years now, has been brought to an end by the Supreme Court, who ruled on Wednesday that biological sex is a person’s legal sex, and that the word “woman” refers only to biological females in law: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g27n80lnjo

This means that transgender people who identify as a given gender will not be allowed access to single-sex facilities for that gender (e.g. a biological male identifying as female will not be allowed access to female toilets, female changing rooms, female wards, and female sport, amongst other things), and their sex will be treated in law as their biological sex even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

With this issue taking up a surprising amount of political oxygen within the last couple of years, the potential fallout of this ruling could be highly consequential for the political landscape. Could we potentially see the prior stances on self-ID and other pro-gender policies adopted by the likes of the SNP rowed back on as a result of this? This is a ruling by our Supreme Court, who are not inherently anti-trans or politically biased in any particular direction by any stretch of the imagination (unlike, say, the USA, Britain’s courts are not political), so I’d imagine that major parties will take this into account.

I’ll admit I do not have the strongest knowledge of this issue, and personally, I believe that it is a tough and highly nuanced issue, much more so than the die-hard advocates of either side of the argument would have you believe. However, I’ll admit that instinctively, I think this is the right call by our justice system.

I wholly respect the right of transgender-identifying people to live as they see fit, and I think they deserve dignity and the right to be respected and live without persecution. However, I also feel that there are a number of circumstances where one’s biological sex cannot be ignored, and where ignoring it would potentially pose issues. A number of biological women, for example, may feel uncomfortable with a biologically male individual changing in a changing room with them, or using the toilet with them, or being in a hospital ward with them, regardless of their gender identity. There is also an argument that biologically male individuals will inherently have an advantage over biologically female individuals if allowed to compete in women’s sports, by mere virtue of the different biological makeup of males (taller and more muscular on average, to say the least), so allowing biologically male individuals to compete in women’s sport arguably risks undermining the recognition that biologically female athletes have long fought for.

Going forward, I think third spaces would be the way to help transgender people feel accommodated while also protecting people’s right to single-sex spaces. I’ve been to places with a third, “gender neutral” space for transgender individuals, and I personally think that’s a good idea that works well for all parties.

With all that being said, I acknowledge it’s a complicated and highly nuanced issue and do not mean to offend anybody. I was talking with my parents about it last night, and we all agreed that fundamentally, what we should aspire towards is simple respect of other people. Anyone of any gender identity should be respected, including trans-identifying people, but by the same token, people who have fought long and hard for the right to single-sex spaces should also be respected, and their biological sex-based rights should be respected.

 

[Bert2theSpark]

The UK Supreme Court has ruled based upon what has already been written within the law. We need amendments to the law to make changes to be more inclusive of trans people. It has revealed the progress that has let to be made for the inclusion of trans people, rather than a back-pedalling of trans rights.

However, I fear that this “victory” by TERFs will be co-opted to instil anti-trans hate within this country and will end up harming those who do not conform to what may be ever-increasingly strict gender norms.



This video sums up the consequences from the media discourse around the ruling. This will end up harming non-trans people. The ruling was around biological sex, but people will public their agenda around well, gender, which in itself is a social construct, not a biological feature.

I do not understand the continued hate towards trans people, they just want to be able to exist. If people live in the closest, it becomes an issue of poor mental health and even worse, suicide. I cannot get my head around some who thinks we need to improve mental health but hates other people for simply ‘not looking like a woman’.

The “they’ll sexually harass you in the bathroom” is complete nonsense. It’s a straw man argument. Blaming someone who’s already been beaten just so you can feel some superiority over another person.

This will also damage men and young teens too. More gender rigidity will lead to more guys going down the manosphere rabbit hole to ‘prove themselves as men’. The nation had a massive conversation about condemning that sort of behaviour last month over a Netflix show. Yet the lack of critical thinking in the collective public consciousness over the same topic is infuriating.

An old classmate of mine posted a video about GB News the other day that was failing an against immigrants. So I click on the GB News profile and I see one of my cousins and a mate from my first-year at University also follow the page. Some people are so badly shit-pilled it’s infuriating. They will fundamentally not listen to what others outside their bubble will have to say, because anything outside that reality to them is nonsensical.

This is why holistic education is so important, and why you should always make an informed vote when you have the opportunity, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. If you do not speak up, someone else who you disagree with will have their voice amplified that bit more…

Fuck off fascism.

 

[Benzin]

What about Intersex people?

And because of this ruling women will HAVE to see Trans Men in their spaces instead. Because they're biologically women. But of course they look like men so will they then be challenged by others?

And with the whole "men will pretend to be women to attack women" thing is as mentioned, a complete straw man. Because a man who wants to assault women or enter their "safe spaces" will of course go through hormones, doctor appointments, therapy, come out to their family and friends just to do so.

Rather than you know, just go in.

It's a worry that it's the first step towards eroding rights of others. Especially given who tends to fund these TERF groups (far right). Odds are the anti-abortion mobs are rubbing their hands with glee with this ruling.

As always, it's not about safety, but controlling certain groups of people who just want to live their lives happily and without fear.

 

[rob666]

...This is why holistic education is so important...

In a nation full of young males hero worshipping the wanker known as Andrew Tate, we haven't got a chance sadly.

 

[Matt N]

There are, absolutely, a lot of enigmas that this ruling introduces. I don’t deny that at all.

Does it make sense to make transgender-identifying men (for clarity, I mean biological females who identify as male; I’m never quite sure of the correct terminology) go into women’s spaces, and vice versa? That’s a legitimate question that needs to be grappled with, and why I also think third spaces are pretty paramount to solving this issue in a way that pleases most parties.

Third spaces would ensure that trans people are protected from hatred and discrimination and can live their lives in a dignified manner, but would also ensure that cisgender people have their right to single-sex spaces protected.

Ultimately, my view is that you can’t really ignore sex or gender. I believe that gender should not take precedent over one’s biological sex in certain sensitive situations (e.g. single-sex spaces), and I believe there is a very small minority who may abuse legislation that saw gender legally replace sex that the law needs to take into account. But equally, I don’t like the Trumpian approach of pretending that gender identity doesn’t exist. I see gender identity a little like religion; some people believe strongly that they have a gender identity distinct from their sex in the same way as some people believe strongly in the existence of a deity. I personally believe neither, but it’s not for me to question someone else’s beliefs on matters that I can’t really disprove, and both viewpoints deserve respect and protection. If someone believes they have a distinct gender identity, that is their lived experience and their truth, and I shouldn’t question that just because it isn’t mine.

And let’s be honest; regardless of your thoughts on some of the more contentious issues like single-sex spaces, it really does cost nothing to respect someone’s chosen pronouns and identity. It’s not really doing you any harm to refer to a person of a given biological sex by their chosen gendered name and pronouns, and it will make so much difference to how that person feels. It’s like I said above; common respect of your fellow person is the fundamental thing we should all aspire towards, and while that should work both ways, it costs nothing to simply be respectful of minority groups like transgender people when you deal with them.

 

[pluk]

And with the whole "men will pretend to be women to attack women" thing is as mentioned, a complete straw man. Because a man who wants to assault women or enter their "safe spaces" will of course go through hormones, doctor appointments, therapy, come out to their family and friends just to do so.

Rather than you know, just go in.

'Pretend to be women to attack other women' is a gross oversimplification of the point. I don't think anyone having a serious discussion about this, or the lawmakers in their considerations, think that people are going through the gruelling gender reassignment process to offend, but that people who do who also happen to be sexual offenders pose a risk. While it would be a vanishingly small percentage of the trans community as a whole it would be naive to think that no trans people are criminals or sex offenders, and to give them an absolute right to access the safe spaces of the opposite sex would be dangerous.

I personally know a number of kind, gentle, lovely transexual people (a minority who actually seem quite well represented within criminal justice, unlike many other minorities), I also know one who is a horrible selfish (still law abiding) person I have no time for, and one who is a criminal sex offender. Such is society I guess.

One of the first sensationalist bits of reporting I've seen is along the lines of 'BTP will be using men to strip search fully transitioned women' or similar. I've not seen whatever policy or guidance they've sent to their officers, but the rules on such matters, PACE, already accounted for eventualities of disputed or unclear gender. This rulling is at odds with elements of PACE and there needs to be a review and amendnent to provide clarity and consistency, but insee what we are left with as workable.

The intent of what PACE is trying to achieve is clear, I think they will have to amend the wording so rather than 'may only be carried out by the same sex' we end up with 'may be carried out by the same sex when...'

In the mean time, with two conflicting legal points, I'm happy that PACE already is worded to go against exclusively 'same sex in law' searches where point 3 is considered alongside point 4. In the absense of anything further, as someone authorising searches, I would still be working by point 4 of the below. There's no doubt that doing so puts me in a legally grey area, but so does not complying with PACE, so all I can do is try to do the right thing for the right reason.


PACE ANNEX L
ESTABLISHING GENDER OF PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEARCHING
1. Certain provisions of this and other PACE Codes explicitly state that searches and other
procedures may only be carried out by, or in the presence of, persons of the same sex as
the person subject to the search or other procedure. See Note L1.
2. All searches and procedures must be carried out with courtesy, consideration and respect
for the person concerned. Police officers should show particular sensitivity when dealing
with transgender individuals (including transsexual persons) and transvestite persons (see
Notes L2, L3 and L4).
(a) Consideration
3. In law, the gender (and accordingly the sex) of an individual is their gender as registered at
birth unless they have been issued with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the
Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA), in which case the person's gender is their acquired
gender. This means that if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a
woman and they must be treated as their acquired gender.
4. When establishing whether the person concerned should be treated as being male or
female for the purposes of these searches and procedures, the following approach which is
designed to minimise embarrassment and secure the person’s co-operation should be
followed:
(a) The person must not be asked whether they have a GRC (see paragraph 8);
(b) If there is no doubt as to as to whether the person concerned should be treated as
being male or female, they should be dealt with as being of that sex.
(c) If at any time (including during the search or carrying out the procedure) there is doubt
as to whether the person should be treated, or continue to be treated, as being male
or female:
(i) the person should be asked what gender they consider themselves to be. If they
express a preference to be dealt with as a particular gender, they should be
asked to indicate and confirm their preference by signing the custody record or,
if a custody record has not been opened, the search record or the officer’s
notebook. Subject to (ii) below, the person should be treated according to their
preference;
(ii) if there are grounds to doubt that the preference in (i) accurately reflects the
person’s predominant lifestyle, for example, if they ask to be treated as a woman
but documents and other information make it clear that they live predominantly
as a man, or vice versa, they should be treated according to what appears to be
their predominant lifestyle and not their stated preference;
(iii) If the person is unwilling to express a preference as in (i) above, efforts should
be made to determine their predominant lifestyle and they should be treated as
such. For example, if they appear to live predominantly as a woman, they
should be treated as being female; or
(iv) if none of the above apply, the person should be dealt with according to what
reasonably appears to have been their sex as registered at birth.
5. Once a decision has been made about which gender an individual is to be treated as, each
officer responsible for the search or procedure should where possible be advised before the
search or procedure starts of any doubts as to the person's gender and the person
informed that the doubts have been disclosed. This is important so as to maintain the
dignity of the person and any officers concerned.

 

[Matt N]

I think @pluk makes the point about single-sex space concerns quite nicely.

No one is saying that transgender people transition with the sole purpose of offending, or that all trans people will offend. It’s simply being said that a small minority of transgender people may also be sex offenders; like any other demographic in society, trans people are not exempt from being sex offenders. A trans person is no more or less likely to offend than a cisgender person.

That small minority should, I feel, be taken into account when making the laws around single-sex spaces to ensure that everyone feels comfortable. I’m sure it is a very small percentage of transgender people, but equally, I’m sure it also isn’t zero.

 

[Benzin]

That small minority should, I feel, be taken into account when making the laws around single-sex spaces to ensure that everyone feels comfortable. I’m sure it is a very small percentage of transgender people, but equally, I’m sure it also isn’t zero.

So by this case, what do we do with the gay/lesbian sex offenders? As they also could not be "trusted" in single sex spaces by this logic.

It's a slippery slope of potential rights erosion for what is likely an incredibly small percentage of the total population to be a boogeyman that the TERFs seem to be in constant fear of. Let alone the amount of "masculine" women who are likely to feel the brunt of this by not fitting into what some class as "femininity".

It's incredibly sad that in 2025 the fear is seemingly absolute, and the culture wars keep marching on.


Edit - As if to prove my point about the CuLtUrE wArS, someone on Labour is saying that Theresa May was too Pro-Trans. I can't even with this.

Amiss Tori (@amisstori.bsky.social)

If you want an example of how far to the right the world has moved on trans and LGBTQ rights… Theresa May is being attacked for being “too pro trans”… BY LABOUR!!! Labour minister says Tories should ‘apologise’ for pro-trans stance under Theresa May...

bsky.app

 

[pluk]

So by this case, what do we do with the gay/lesbian sex offenders? As they also could not be "trusted" in single sex spaces by this logic.

I don't disagree, but a man attacking a woman is seen is as less acceptable, both socially and legally, than same sex violence. It is an aggravating factor, an uneven power dynamic. Violence against women and girls is currently the hot topic and due to male violence women are seen as inherently vulnerable... as, of course, are the trans community.

It's circular. There isn't an absolute correct answer to this on either side, and those who think there is should probably be ignored. Having a solid legal precedent to work from though must be a good thing over the vaguery of what went before that was open to interpretation and abuse?