Starmer and Reeves' Labour government has been openly practicing hard right scapegoating/ moral panic whipping up tactics against minorities marked for attacks by right wing media for some time now.
I find the Labour Government's approach to scapegoating rather odder than from the Right. It's almost as though someone has advised them that it's OK, or that they can get away with it, presumably because they don't really mean it, or because they caveat it (or some other incoherent justification). But they (government ministers) are being publicly accused of scapegoating by their own back-benchers, so I can't see they have much of an excuse.
As Judith Butler put it
Once you decide that a single vulnerable minority can be sacrificed, you’re operating within a fascist logic, because that means there might be a second one you’re willing to sacrifice, and a third, a fourth, and then what happens?
For others: that particular quote of Judith Butler's looks to come from an El País interview almost a year ago, which is well worth a read. It also includes the following (about a certain world leader):
The people who say, “Oh, I don’t like that part of his behavior, but I’m going to vote for him anyway because of the economy,” they’re admitting that they are willing to live with that misogyny and look away from his sexual violence. The more people who say that they can “live with” racism and misogyny in a candidate, even if they’re not enthusiastic racists, the more the enthusiastic racists and the fascists become stronger.
Since she became Chancellor, I have heard people, in public, refer to Rachel Reeves with extraordinarily violent levels of misogyny.
That's not what they are talking about when they are talking about a deficit; they are referring to a difference between the levels of taxes and the levels of spending.
Then they are talking about the wrong thing. Government should get the public services right and generate taxation and other income to cover it. Then fail to get elected next time round because all the electorate care about is what they are told about the damage that this straightforward and decent policy would cause them because thanks to the legacy of Margaret Thatcher it's all about me me me and not about looking after everyone.
Running a budget is all about explaining and justifying the taxes and spending. The budget "deficit" is the amount by which government spending exceeds income (primarily from taxes) and is thus the amount the government needs to borrow to make up the difference.
@pease but it's not, as far as I can tell, the people Reeves is really fucking over aka disabled people and those on benefits who are being misogynistic about her. That others are being misogynistic about her doesn't justify her apparent hatred of disabled people and anyone on benefits.
Thanks, Pomona. I wasn't trying to suggest that experiencing misogyny justifies anything that Rachel Reeves does or her attitude to any other vulnerable groups. If anything, the converse - that it illustrates that as soon as you go down a road of suggesting that scapegoating (as just one type of hostile act) is in any way justifiable, you need to remember that what goes around, comes around. Other forms of hostility become legitimised.
The only "winners" in this kind of game are people comfortable living in a world that sets different groups of people against each other. And profit from it.
Since she became Chancellor, I have heard people, in public, refer to Rachel Reeves with extraordinarily violent levels of misogyny.
This is par for the course for female politicians. There are sometimes exceptions for those who support patriarchy who can become media darlings, the better for the media to use them to attack progressive women and more vulnerable minority groups but a woman doing something up to now male-coded like being Chancellor will normally attract high levels of misogyny.
Nicola Sturgeon was light years beyond Rachel Reeves in her politics but received absolutely rabid misogyny in the press and social media.
There were well- known male Scottish left political commentators who suddenly lurched violently right-ward when she took over and have been radical misogynists ever since.
The philosopher Kate Manne who saw this sort of phenomenon directed at U S politicians Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton was inspired to write the book 'Down Girl' about how misogyny works and how women perceived to have stepped out of their place of being unselfish doormat people-pleasing pro-patriarchy 'givers' and nurturers get it in the neck in a sexist way that men are rarely targeted with.
That’s why I bracket Reeves with Starmer - they are both equally horrifying because of their willingness for political gain to punch down on people who are helpless to defend themselves from the state power that they wield. They are equally bad.
I was just listening to Quiet Riot. A left of centre podcast. That is also very critical of the government.
They demonstrated unequivocally that whatever other faults Reeves has, it is a complete and utter myth that Reeves lied. If you don't believe me, look at the transcript of her speech and answers to questions.
I was just listening to Quiet Riot. A left of centre podcast. That is also very critical of the government.
Presumably the podcast run by the people who recommended voting for the Lib Dems in 2019 in over 100 constituencies, an election in which the Lib Dems went from 12 to 11 seats.
As opposed to the podcast run by the people who thought neoliberalism was a left wing conspiracy theory until they actually read a book by self declared neoliberals.
They are critical of the government, but more critical of the people who started being critical of the government before they did.
Look, I resigned my membership of the Party after Starmer's speech on Immigration that was frankly appalling. I have every sympathy with many of the criticisms that accurately reflect where the government is failing.
But there is nothing more important in this space than an honest discussion of the facts. Your thoughts here on Naomi Smith are irrelevant to the point.
And we have a government that is failing and disappointing many of us. However, it is also a fact that they face a media environment that is desperately hostile.
To return to the point, on this specific story, there is no lie that Reeves told. There is a media interpretation of her speech which is not the same as what she said. It is only by taking that interpretation as her own words - which it wasn't - that you can get close to suggesting Reeves lied.
By comparison look at the nonsense about Chess championships.
Let's have an honest debate and not let the lies infiltrate our discussions.
Look, I resigned my membership of the Party after Starmer's speech on Immigration that was frankly appalling. I have every sympathy with many of the criticisms that accurately reflect where the government is failing.
But there is nothing more important in this space than an honest discussion of the facts.
Right; but the correction to a media environment which plays fast and loose with the facts isn't to pick a different set of pundits that are fast and loose in a different direction.
Do you ever reflect on the fact that many people here made the same criticisms of Starmer long before his speech on Immigration? Do you wonder why they might have been correct? Or do you just have the same reaction as Andreou: https://bsky.app/profile/flyingrodent.bsky.social/post/3lp7cny5ghc2q
On these forums, you were rather dismissive of the idea that Starmer writing for the Sun might be indicative of his politics, you repeatedly said we'd have to wait and see the policies, well that was then and this is now.
There are more substantive criticisms of her on this very thread, but you choose not to engage with them, that is indeed your luxury.
Comments
Running a budget is all about explaining and justifying the taxes and spending. The budget "deficit" is the amount by which government spending exceeds income (primarily from taxes) and is thus the amount the government needs to borrow to make up the difference.
The only "winners" in this kind of game are people comfortable living in a world that sets different groups of people against each other. And profit from it.
This is par for the course for female politicians. There are sometimes exceptions for those who support patriarchy who can become media darlings, the better for the media to use them to attack progressive women and more vulnerable minority groups but a woman doing something up to now male-coded like being Chancellor will normally attract high levels of misogyny.
Nicola Sturgeon was light years beyond Rachel Reeves in her politics but received absolutely rabid misogyny in the press and social media.
There were well- known male Scottish left political commentators who suddenly lurched violently right-ward when she took over and have been radical misogynists ever since.
The philosopher Kate Manne who saw this sort of phenomenon directed at U S politicians Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton was inspired to write the book 'Down Girl' about how misogyny works and how women perceived to have stepped out of their place of being unselfish doormat people-pleasing pro-patriarchy 'givers' and nurturers get it in the neck in a sexist way that men are rarely targeted with.
That’s why I bracket Reeves with Starmer - they are both equally horrifying because of their willingness for political gain to punch down on people who are helpless to defend themselves from the state power that they wield. They are equally bad.
I was just listening to Quiet Riot. A left of centre podcast. That is also very critical of the government.
They demonstrated unequivocally that whatever other faults Reeves has, it is a complete and utter myth that Reeves lied. If you don't believe me, look at the transcript of her speech and answers to questions.
It is simply not true. The media lied twice.
Presumably the podcast run by the people who recommended voting for the Lib Dems in 2019 in over 100 constituencies, an election in which the Lib Dems went from 12 to 11 seats.
As opposed to the podcast run by the people who thought neoliberalism was a left wing conspiracy theory until they actually read a book by self declared neoliberals.
They are critical of the government, but more critical of the people who started being critical of the government before they did.
But that doesn't change the facts anyway.
But there is nothing more important in this space than an honest discussion of the facts. Your thoughts here on Naomi Smith are irrelevant to the point.
And we have a government that is failing and disappointing many of us. However, it is also a fact that they face a media environment that is desperately hostile.
To return to the point, on this specific story, there is no lie that Reeves told. There is a media interpretation of her speech which is not the same as what she said. It is only by taking that interpretation as her own words - which it wasn't - that you can get close to suggesting Reeves lied.
By comparison look at the nonsense about Chess championships.
Let's have an honest debate and not let the lies infiltrate our discussions.
Right; but the correction to a media environment which plays fast and loose with the facts isn't to pick a different set of pundits that are fast and loose in a different direction.
Do you ever reflect on the fact that many people here made the same criticisms of Starmer long before his speech on Immigration? Do you wonder why they might have been correct? Or do you just have the same reaction as Andreou: https://bsky.app/profile/flyingrodent.bsky.social/post/3lp7cny5ghc2q
On these forums, you were rather dismissive of the idea that Starmer writing for the Sun might be indicative of his politics, you repeatedly said we'd have to wait and see the policies, well that was then and this is now.
There are more substantive criticisms of her on this very thread, but you choose not to engage with them, that is indeed your luxury.