Article on Starmer indicates the public are @getting@ it

"Labour still struggling to keep up, still lashed to the dinosaur unions, still stealing green policy at every turn, except where it conflicts with the dead hand of the unions and their support for derelict industries, still lashed to transatlantic militarism and now calling to the "red wall" proto-mosleyites for support. The "red wall" was never labour, it was always just selfish, backward looking and wilfully uneducated and followed the unions because they promised the moon forever without working for it."

Oh wow. I wish I hadn't started reading this. I wonder what this fuckwit does for a living?

Sorry I misread, its 143 upvotes.

Guardian comment with 134 upvotes:
"Will this bring back the Red Wallers, many of whom would have supported Mosley in the 30s. I doubt it."

It's the perfect example of the schism. Some self-important bellend in a newspaper comment section reckons northerners are fascists because they didn't agree with him on the EU. Almost makes me feel sorry for Starmer.

(News UK publishes the Times, Sunday Times, & the Sun)

• just found this, though, which is interesting:

'The August ABC figures are the first in which the Guardian and Observer are absent, having chosen to keep their circulations private as News UK and the Telegraph did last year.

The Guardian’s departure from the grid comes after its circulation was overtaken by the Financial Times in June for the first time since before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Previously the audited circulation of the FT had been above that of the Guardian since 2000, the earliest available online ABC records. '

www.pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-newspapers-uk-abc-monthly-circulation-figures/

The Times and Guardian have very different subs models, though, so I'm not sure how comparable they will be.

(Although I have done just as you note, kalidasa - cancelling Guardian sub a few years back and now sub to the Times).

Would be interesting to see the Times subscription figures but my impression is a lot of previously Guardian-reading middle aged women have started paying for the Times over the last few years because of their good sense on this issue and willingness to publish about it.

I think how the guardian works is they will delete anything GC if it can be considered 'off topic' as that's one of the rules under 'community standards' , and they try their best not to have comments open on any article where gender is mentioned, therefore GC comments will almost always be off topic. However this week their daily politics blog has covered all the gender goings on at the labour conference, so GC comments are now on-topic and have been able to stand. I'd say the GC comments are getting a lot of pushback but also a fair few upvotes. Not sure if this will continue tomorrow or not, but if so it would be a good time for a FWR takeover :)

The Guardian are in a real mess.

They regularly do well researched investigative pieces on women’s health, which somehow slip past with the word ‘woman’, but can’t acknowledge in the rest of the paper that ‘woman’ can be used to refer to sex not gender.

Mine was removed within five minutes. Just wait until the Guardian does an article defending freedom of speech!

My comment stayed up for now, but they've closed commenting very quickly.

It's extremely depressing how blatant the censorship is. I think it's genuinely contributing to a huge lack of awareness on this.

I posted this under the Guardian article referred to above:

Given the well publicised and debated comments by David Lammy, Keir Starmer, Angela Rayner et al regarding the rights of transwomen over natal women, the party have offended a significant proportion of 51% of the electorate. Regardless of his speech, if the Conservatives make a manifest commitment not to remove access to women (sorry, bodies with vaginas from the Lancet which should know better) only spaces by anyone who wants it, they are on the way to winning the next election hands down.

Shortages will go away, this issue won't.

It has been removed: 'This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.'

BUT, there has been a sea change in the nature of the contributions from men below the line in the Times. There are countless male posters who have been speaking about women's rights in recent weeks. It's not enough, but it gives me a little hope.

on the Guardian there's hardly a mention of women's rights in the comments
My comment has been removed from The Guardian story. When comments are open and uncensored even the Guardian readership is broadly pro-women/pro- reality.

InvisibleDragon The Guardian blocks comments which don't support their views on trans issues. I used to be able to comment on political articles but now they no longer show up.

The guardian would delete comments that the times let stand

I've posted something. I'll let you know how long it lasts!

The guardian would delete comments that the times let stand

Really? This week, of all weeks, when we have seen politician after politician throw women under the bus - and you think the tide is turning?

The Times BTL comments have been GC for years. That means nothing.

Sadly, I don't have this confidence. The Times comments are good, but on the Guardian there's hardly a mention of women's rights in the comments:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/the-verdict-on-keir-starmers-labour-conference-speech

Oh well. It makes the election campaign very easy doesn't it?

Women: Ffs don't vote for any of the following list!

Oh, god.

SNP/Labour coalition. with SNP/Greens up here.

Can you blimmin imagine? Women would be thrown on bonfires!

Sorry, I mean: 'Women's rights would be thrown on bonfires!'

–1 the face-eating leopard party
–2 the face-eating cheetah party
–3 the face-eating necrotising fasciitis party
–4 a coalition of 1 and 3 or 2 and 3