How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet - James Kirkup

Charlie, Yes.

I can't imagine for a moment that JMcD will want to set off another full scale internal Labour fight at a point when the Tories might be forced to hold a crisis Brexit election. Lots of far more important things to do, like gaining control of their shortlists, and ensuring that Tom Watson is shuffled sideways.

So a couple of placatory words, with the hope that this is enough to staunch the flow of women from the party.

I think you are right. I don't think he has any interest in this issue. He has his own agenda.

All the same, the signalling that debate is needed is useful.

JK, in contrast, knows how far from the existing position this is

I agree with this. The current position and orthodoxy can be read by watching how the Beeb treats it, and at the moment that is still no debate/TWAW. McDonnell has implied that it can be talked about, so now everyone will be checking behind the scenes to see if he meant it. They will all be reassured privately that he didn't mean it, and all will go on as before. There will be no debate, and extreme transactivists will be given the louder voice.

John McDonnell doesn't care about women on this issue one scrap, not at all, and nor does he care about trans identified people, one bit. He realised that it could have an impact on his wider project, and is vote counting. He's just appeasing both sides and hoping to keep that up until an election/leadership challenge.

If you suddenly see more GC balanced items on the BBC that will be a sign that they've been given the go ahead from on high to push back against Trans Media Watch. But they won't be, and we won't.

We don't want concessions now: we want our rights back

Absolutely

Absolutely bowl as far as I’m aware a vote doesn’t have a sex or a gender identity or anything other than an adult saying yes to a candidate or party. Why would you ignore millions of voters.

I’ve read some Jewish people feel that because they are such a small minority group that labour don’t really have to worry about losing their votes because it doesn’t make a difference. Well one fuck that because it should and two, women are a majority group and labour should be worried about losing support of over half the population and three the trans population is a smaller group than Jewish people but that minority is carefully considered so what’s all that about if it’s all a numbers game?

I’m so embarrassed because labour and socialism are what I used to believe in. Throwing away all the support of women, the working class and certain minority groups in order to pander to middle class woke types who will switch to conservative once they become fully entrenched in the establishment.

Ereshkigal

Yes, other journalists suggest he was limp on the issue. JK, in contrast, knows how far from the existing position this is. I wonder what the Labour Party student activists, who so happily no-platformed WPUK, feel. Or the woke policy experts in organisations like the Gymnastics Association who have driven carts and horses through existing child protection policies without consulting coaches and members.

Labour come across as disingenuous at best, over the Brexit and Self Id issues. McDonnall more or less said on the chat he'd rather screw over the country on Brexit, and gave platitudes over self id to keep the women sweet. There goes my vote. The Party comes across as a We'll do it tomorrow fucking omnishambles.

I'm with you McWilde this is pretty much my interpretation of Labour policy regardless of who is 'leading' the party. There are groups with far too much power within the Labour Party structure for me to take any shushing and head patting of Mumsnetters at face value.

Perhaps JK is relieved with John McDonnell's concession that this is an issue to be debated. A big step forward from #nodebate.

Yes. I do think it is better than it would have been a year ago. And I wonder what the meeting with WPUK was like.

Sorry, clicky link in case anyone wants it

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6182741/SARAH-VINE-fears-gender-agenda-harming-children.html

I find Vine profoundly irritating but she was one of the very first columnists to talk about the issue in a major national paper, for which credit is due.

One thing I find disturbing about all this is how NO parties are mopping up the votes labour will lose on this.

If one party supports an idea that polarises people, there’s always another taking the opposite stance to get those votes onside.

But here? For women? Nowt.

We will remember this.

Perhaps JK is relieved with John McDonnell's concession that this is an issue to be debated. A big step forward from #nodebate.

Who knows whether Labour wants, or is able to, review the detail of proposed changes carefully without the vested interest lobby - and how many are having their wages paid on the back of the transgender diversity agenda - drowning others out. JM may feel he has thrown out a few crumbs and that is enough.

However the acknowledgement that debate is needed, and acceptable, is a good thing in itself, as it will encourage reasonable voices to contribute, balancing the volume behind different arguments.

I note Sarah Vine is in the Mail again today [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6182741/SARAH-VINE-fears-gender-agenda-harming-children.html] . She received a lot of stick about her similar article in August, when even suggesting there was cause for concern was labelled "hate". When looking for the latest article I noted that the previous one received a tremendous number of comments. Presumably McDonnell and Labour have spotted that the Tories are taking, albeit baby, steps towards examining this issue. And fear that, should there be an election before Christmas, they need to be careful to make sure they don't lose votes as a result.

If labour want my vote (and labour you’ve previously had my vote and I WANT to vote for you)

This. But be aware: I will never return my vote if women are to be the casualties of any policy agenda. Never.

really good point boatyardblues

the LP need to stop breaking the law with regard to all women shortlists, reinstate Jennifer James and give her a sincere apology for the way she's been treated.

then maybe we can talk

I’ll believe actions, not words.

It was positive he came on and engaged. I also think there’s not much compromise possible here - this is an issue where one group is pressing for something that will actively strip rights and protections from another group.

The answer is no. No is not the start of a negotiation.

If labour want my vote (and labour you’ve previously had my vote and I WANT to vote for you) they need to:

Oppose self ID
Commit to women’s rights
Acknowledge that any change to GRA risks making the EA unworkable
Understand and USE the difference between sex and gender - make sure no conflation between the two is happening
Reject the idea that enforcing the sex based exemptions allowed in the EA must be done on a case by case basis - it would make the EA unworkable.
Tackle rampant misogyny and anti Semitism
Tackle the increasing authoritarian streak (no platforming, momentum etc.)

Reaffirm that that AWS are for female candidates, as permitted the EA2010 prescribes, and reserve Women’s Officer posts for females & we’ll talk.

I think that removing Dawn Butler from role is another prerequisite before I'll even think about a possible return to the Labour fold. John, be aware: we know what she says about us from behind closed doors and we will never accept her as an honest broker with regards to our rights.

Late to comment, but I agree there was nothing to rejoice about in John McDonald’s pussyfooting equivocation. As others have said, we watch what the party does, not what it says. Reaffirm that that AWS are for female candidates, as permitted the EA2010 prescribes, and reserve Women’s Officer posts for females & we’ll talk. ‘Til then, the LP can fuck right off.

About Zoe Williams, literally nothing will surprise about the stupidity of the Guardian any more. What surprised me is that people think it has any relevance, apart from as an echo chamber of fuckwitterry.

i thought jk got it seriously wrong and was disappointed, as he's usually on the nail about this.

That guardian write up was also bullshit. Though I’m very confused as to why so many newspapers and journalists feel what mothers have to say is important and yet when the guardian report on it, it is to sneer and to remind everyone that mothers know fuck all. Facts are sacred my arse.

Ugh Zoe Williams is being such a man-pleasing Guardian Cool Girl. How does she not hear the clanging cognitive dissonance around this.

Fairly sure she didn’t find MN a bunch of arses when she was plugging her parenting book..

I also haven’t forgotten her speaking at a women’s event as a pro choice on abortion speaker, complaining about other women writing in the media about their infertility and wish to be a mother.

As if women couldn’t be both pro choice AND want to get pregnant, or be a mother.
Fairly sure she had a column about being a mother once she became one herself and continued writing her own occasional pro choice articles.

However being ignorant and judgemental of other wornen’s actions suits the Guardian’s handmaidenly output perfectly.

The Zoe Williams article was patronising crap. But very much in line with The Guardian's editorial policy towards women.

No, Gaby Hinsliffe, I haven't forgotten your article blaming women for being sexually assaulted.

Hold on. A jewish poster has been banned for pointing out another poster's views were antisemitic?!

@mnhq - explain yourselves!!

On the whole I was not impressed and I am liberal and I have always voted left. Deigning to meet with some women to discuss women’s rights when they’ve been actively dismantling them is bullshit. Offering to speak to Jewish groups like it’s some massive concession is bullshit. Brexit is bullshit.

Any prime minister at the time would have invaded Iraq because it went with what the Americans wanted. I look back at Tony Blair’s Labour Party and they did an awful lot of good. If Corbyns Labour think there’s enough middle class students to vote them in then carry on but I feel like there’s a lot of people like me looking at them thinking wtf and not understanding why they can’t see the problems for themselves.

Well I agree with the majority of posters on here and the thrust of the Sun article. However there is a glimmer of hope that maybe James is playing a game. By building up MCDonnell it could actually embolden him and other labour MPs to stand up against what he must personally consider us a load of horseshit.

He can say he will consult all he likes but the fact is that they didn't, they haven't. They wilfully trample on women's rights, throw women out of the party for questioning their misogyny. Nah mate, this doesn't give me any hope at all.

From The Sun: ''MALE & STALE' John McDonnell tried to woo mums with a webchat on Mumsnet… and it didn’t go well'
(extract)
"IF John McDonnell thought a chat with some mums online would be a piece of cake, he had no idea what he was letting himself in for.

The Marxist shadow chancellor was torn apart by the formidable users of Mumsnet in a live chat, where he was blasted as "patronising" and "evasive". (continues)

Many of them grilled him about his position on transgender rights, an issue that has recently divided the party.

Some mums are concerned about what they consider to be trans rights being promoted at the expense of others.

Labour allows anyone to "self define" and stand on all-women shortlists to become councillors and MPs - a move that has angered many in the party.

But many mothers weren't happy with his attempts to stay on the fence in the debate.

One said: "I want my daughter to be able to get changed to go swimming without a naked penis in proximity. Some people want to self ID so that their naked penis is in proximity to my daughter.

"Where's the solution that keeps both parties happy?" (continues)

www.thesun.co.uk/news/7287680/mumsnet-mums-blast-john-mcdonnells-patronising-and-evasive-online-web-chat/