Jess Phillips throws GC women under the bus

Apparently they will let her know if any issues are of concern to many Mners but how will they know if once there has been one post about an issue we're not allowed any more?

I'm fine with questions too. And I'm also fine with keeping the pressure on when the answers aren't remotely good enough. I don't care what you think about it.

HTH Jess and Juno.

Oh fucks sake sorry wrong thread

Jess Philips can I ask how you feel about the principles in general of NoDebate and de platforming etc of people? This is a topic currently in the news and this week you said "questions are fine" in an interview. Your comment was in response to the interviewer saying "questions are fine, concerns are prejudiced". Do you agree that concerns are always prejudiced and shouldn't be raised, or do you believe that concerns should always be expressed, especially if large numbers of a particular group share these concerns?

I'm that posts on that thread are being removed instead of staying up with a deletion message, as is usual.

I think it's actually worse to remove them totally as it seems MN are really trying to deny/minimise the extent of women's concerns on something that covers a wide range of areas that impact hugely on women.

Jess Philips can I ask how you feel about the principles in general of NoDebate and de platforming etc of people? This is a topic currently in the news and this week you said "questions are fine" in an interview. Your comment was in response to the interviewer saying "questions are fine, concerns are prejudiced". Do you agree that concerns are always prejudiced and shouldn't be raised, or do you believe that concerns should always be expressed, especially if large numbers of a particular group (eg women) share these concerns?

My question about police creating 'criminal records', which can affect employment, on the basis of individual reports without any evidence, and the lack if judicial oversight of this, has been deleted. No mention of transport or sex or gender because they were not the point if the question - which was over-reach of the police.

I agree with pp's. Jess Phillips herself has raised the spousal veto herself - it is one of policies that she will change it. Why is a question on her own policy not allowed?

The identity politics guff has alienated most voters. It’s up to labour if they bother listening but looks like they seem to actively enjoy losing. Let them crack on.

As I've asked my question but suddenly come across this, I'll shove it here anyway. 74%, 7fucking4%.

posters from the trans widows thread should be allowed to question her views, which, I repeat, she expressed herself

Exactly. What's with the mollycoddling? Jess Phillips brought it up herself, I would have thought she'd be up for discussing it.
Or did MNHQ receive instructions from her people to delete any questions about her support for the removal of the exit clause?

I wonder what would happen if MNers decided not to engage with the webchats when we know the main issues aren't going to be addressed

Well, post-deletions, that chat thread isn't exactly zinging. 26 posts: 5 on gender, 3 by MN (2 of which are saying don't ask about gender) and 1 complaint about a deleted post.

So either MNers as a whole are disengaged from Labour (bad for Jess) or they want to engage with Labour but about verboten topics (also bad for Jess).

I do accept that webchats shouldn't be dominated by one topic if others want a look in but it does not appear that anyone wants a look in!

Meh, politicians answer the questions they want to answer

She’s got no hope of winning the leadership so I wouldn’t worry too much. She is a traitor to women though and she should be ashamed of herself.

I can’t get through Dawson’s dreadful prose.

Patronising arsehole. Used to lecture gay men on how to be properly gay, now lectures feminists on how to feminist properly.

Fuck off, ‘Hon’.

I'm normally sympathetic to MNHQ but I'm really disappointed that Tinsel's question was deleted. It was Jess Phillips who raised the issue of the spousal veto / exit clause on Twitter, without any prompting. If she wants to be party leader it, seems absolutely right to me that posters from the trans widows thread should be allowed to question her views, which, I repeat, she expressed herself. Otherwise really, what's the point?

If Jess wants to broadcast and not engage
I wonder what would happen if MNers decided not to engage with the webchats when we know the main issues aren't going to be addressed ...

People do look at me quite oddly if I suggest supporting trans rights tramples over women.

That's because the campaign against self-id isn't about opposing trans rights. It's about opposing a privilege granted to people who identify as trans that is not granted to any other protected group and which infringes on the rights of other protected groups.

We do not oppose trans rights. None of us are campaigning to abolish the Equality Act provisions which grant people who identify as trans protection from discrimination and harassment.

I'm not sure gender identity is seen as such a feminist issue outside MN. I work with a woman who would fight to the death for equal rights for women but she's also very keen to be inclusive of all people. Moat people I meet are either anti trans because "yuk" or support everyone's right to live as they choose. People do look at me quite oddly if I suggest supporting trans rights tramples over women.

I stopped reading and engaging with web chats quite some time ago. It’s obvious that the politicians who take part don’t actually want to discuss real issues - just a quick opportunity to pat women on the head and patronise the ‘mums’.

Politicians who cannot listen women’s concerns in a mature, considered way don’t get my vote.

This is the post democratic era, remember? Mandelson said so. Not speaking to , it's speaking at , while excluding anyone who disagrees with the prescribed beliefs (and their evidence, facts etc) because wrongthink.

Politicians need to earn votes. Voters do not need to earn a hearing.

Hear hear.

The restrictions being put on women wanting to discuss politicians' own policies are ridiculous. Why are politicians being protected from the informed views of their constituents when they volunteer to come and speak to them?

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think any of them have an overarching vision that could inspire the country to vote for them anyway. They each manage to inspire their own faction of the Labour Party and that's it.

Politicians need to earn votes. Voters do not need to earn a hearing.

Yes, Lang. If they want an echo chamber, let them have it. It's been their modus operandi to congratulate each other on how woke they are for the past ten years anyway, and it's obviously serving them well, so crack on, Labour! Have fun!

Agree, Michelle.

Let the 'webchat' go ahead and discuss, I don't know, the price of tea and biscuits, or whatever. It's pointless even trying to engage with people who just want stirring soundbites but don't actually have any intention to listen or engage.

Labour are not even a political entity in this country at this time, anyway. Full of sound and fury ...

I would say that the people Labour leadership candidates need to speak to most are those who are politically engaged and have previously voted Labour but are currently disengaging from the party in their droves.

One such demographic would be materialist feminist women. Another would be those interested in free speech. Another would be those interested in the safeguarding of children.

But you know - if Jess wants to broadcast and not engage, that's fine. She can just continue to be either the leader of or the losing leadership candidate in a declining political party. And if Mumsnet doesn't want her to engage with the people who would like to vote Labour but currently don't - then why invite her to come? What good will it do Mumsnet, the Labour party, or Jess herself?

*MN and politicians see this as a nice bit of light PR
*
Spot on

*Help or get out of the bloody way
*
Exactly

Maybe a list of questions is the way to go but as we chats are moderated we can just write Philips an email.

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Phone: 020 7219 87033_
Email: [email protected]k_