Re: Starmer

You are quite correct no one has to respond to anyone. Sometimes though when that occurs people might draw the conclusion that the person not responding is doing so because they don't have a coherrent argument to make.

Then there are those of us who have just had enough of being blackmailed by the purveyors of a corrupt and unrepresentative electoral system to vote for a party we think are shit just because they say "but we're not as shit as them >>>".

If someone wants to institute PR and give me a real, meaningful choice I'll glady use it. Keir Starmer is of course in the perfect position to do exactly that, as he's likely to win the next election no matter what he does, but will likely need the support of smaller parties to govern. But to do that he'd have to value democracy.

In the meantime, the fact that we live under an effectively dictatorial system where two parties both promote the economic interests of the establishment and ensure there is no mechanism to challenge it is not my fault. I didn't ask for it, or for the absurd charade of First Past The Post voting in single member constituencies that sustains its illusion of democratic validity.

If the Tories win the next election that will be because of the people who voted Tory. Anybody who didn't vote for them has not given their assent to be governed by them, and if they don't vote at all that might just be because they don't give their assent to the whole corrupt system that pretends to seek it. That assent can't be presumed; it's up to people themselves do decide what's a genuine and fair way for them to be governed.

Empowermenomore · Yesterday 00:59
well, nothing about standing up to Rosie Duffield bullying, nothing about the Cass report, no sign of meeting WPUK or any such women group, but already making his bed with Stonewall Chairman who is switching parties to get closer to steering the Labour Party to his fire...

not voting until ‘safe spaces’ are defined as single sex spaces according to biological sex not gender or grc

Given what you say here is so true, and with no end in sight, please would anyone who has not done so already look at the petitions board to sign and share the Sex -Matters petition about updating the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic ‘ sex ‘ is biological, and can’t be trumped by a GRC?

Please ignore claims made in the Government’s response so far that the wording around same sex spaces is fine as it is. It is not, because of complications arising from GRCs which could lead to discrimination litigation, especially since Lady Haldane’s ruling which has not been appealed.

This petition needs more signatures if it is to reach 100,000 in time for the cut-off and prompt a Parliamentary debate.

Mmm! So he hasn’t actually made a public announcement promoting self id.

I think the Conservative plan to use gender politics as an election time bomb will blow up in their faces.

Still some Corbynites around then. Amazing! 😂

Not outright, but those who had to install panic alarms and have bodyguards for protection couldn't really safely stay. That's a form of expulsion - 'constructive dismissal' perhaps.

Oh FFS what an offensive load of made up propaganda twaddle.

Did you know that Boris Johnson personally ate my kitten?

Starmer will be too afraid to stand against them whatever he personally believes

This is not a man ready to run the country.
Even bigger things than this will happen when running a country (this is huge to me but I realise not everyone thinks the same) will he be too afraid when these things happen? Will he be able to control his party? I have doubts.

That's not a question of Corbyn expelling them, it's a question of the party bureaucracy apply the disciplinary process properly (for once!) Probably the only clear, specific thing in the Labour party rulebook is that you cannot be a member of the party and support a candidate from an opposing party against it. It's automatic expulsion, no questions asked. That's why Alastair Campbell was out so quickly and decisively when he advocated voting lib dem.

Corbyn did indeed seek to build upon the party's tradition as a broad church, along with strengthening the democratic acountability of its rules and processes to allow all voices a fair say. Starmer on the other hand has stuck his middle finger up to rule and process and just autocratically booted out much of the membership for no reason other than that they disagree with him. Anyone who thinks that's the kind of prime minister we need when the Tories have already brought our sick and beaten democracy to the very edge of fascism, might want to think again.

Dont be silly

she hasn’t deplatformed you, she just doesn’t want to deal with you

its fair enough, people can’t be forced to respond to other posters

I'm concerned that MSM are not really saying that sturgeon came a cropper because of her wedding herself to self id. That is absolutely what sank her, but because news folk in general are so woke its almost as if they can't quite believe it.
I wish the papers and the BBC would say loud and clear that the people of Scotland woke up to the chaos self id was causing and turned against it which made her position untenable. Until it is said loudly, the London based Labour self id panderers can pretend they don't know and Starmer will be too afraid to stand against them whatever he personally believes

LOL. On the contrary, I think Tory supporters are much more likely to like him than a lot of Labour supporters. 😀

It's by no means in the bag. KS has plenty of time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Women are watching.

I am SO looking forward to KJK making Starmer look completely ridiculous when she stands against him. He will not be able to hide his ludicrous views.

Not aimed at me I know but had to answer, I wrote several times in I think 2021 and early 2022. Not a single reply and I think my email might have been blocked.
Ive written to a few Tory MPs and always had a reply. It might not have been what I wanted to hear, but still they bothered, even bo jo while he was in downing street (yes it was a flunky that actually replied but still)

He has said at various times that the GRA was 'in desperate need of reform to introduce self-declaration for transgender people" and that the Labour Party is committed to updating the GRA to introduce self-declaration for trans people.

He also said in an interview in January "We want to modernise the system, we're looking at what the options are, there are all sorts of different definitions in relation to self-certification."

There was also an address to the Labour Campaign for LGBT+ Rights in February which was greeted with glee by the Campaign and Ben Bradshaw said he had recommitted "to reforming the UK's out-of-date gender recognition process". However his actual words on that occasion are not publicly available.

The demonising rhetoric is just one of the strategies to attempt to discredit posters who have concerns about his moral compass. It's used in the absence of actual debate or conversation.

What is his publicly announced attitude to Self-ID? I'm not aware he's made one.

It's not demonising Starmer to call out or question his stance on women's rights.

And I ask again, what is his policy on males in women's prisons?

How does his publicly announced attitude to self ID impact such a policy?

So that women can decide whether he and his party deserve their votes.

If the current government who actually have the power to change things, aren't making changes quick enough why not campaign to get them to make changes. As far as I can tell the purpose of these threads is to demonise Starmer, presumably somone at CCHQ thinks it will be as effective as the but Corbyn narrative.

Yes, he did. He expelled three Labour members in Surrey for backing an NHS candidate against Jeremy Hunt when JH was Health Secretary.

Eh?

If you click on the link and read the text, it clearly says the current government is making changes to its policy - "Under the reforms, transgender women with male genitalia, or those who have been convicted of a sexual offence, should no longer be held in the general women’s estate."

Not far enough for many of us - no males at all in women''s prisons or any other women's spaces is what we want

Now, what is Keir "Self ID" Starmer's policy?

At the risk of derailing this thread though, I think that the Tories are waiting to use Starmer’s ridiculous pronouncements about who may or may not have a cervix against him.

Of course they will, making your political opponents look foolish is part of the job. They don't normally make it quite this easy for you though.

Any sign yet of Starmer meeting with the Labour Women's Declaration? They have shown the patience of Griselda.

jgw1 · Today 13:49

I know. Which makes it all the more confusing why some posters seem to want to blame KS.

Nobody is blaming him for the current situation, they're criticising him for being such a fool that he wants to simplify Self ID radically, thereby making the situation far worse and for being unable to learn from Sturgeon's disaster.

howmanybicycles · Today 13:37

I think this poster knew this. They're just arguing that because this happens under a tory government, there's no reason not to vote for kier starmer.

Ah, thanks.

Curious. A poster just linked to the Ministry of Justice policy on it. Do we have some kind of Schrodinger's inmate?