Time to dust off your Labour Party membership and support LWD

Not sure I'd be very welcome in the Labour Party round my neck of the woods.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4802771-mark-drakeford-first-minister-wales-womens-concerns-a-shrill-dogwhistle

@bdbd67thSaysReinstateLangCleg

Thanks so much for supporting the 3 crowdfunders. You're right, this is an expensive fight. So many good GC causes.

If they win, it's more protection for the rights and freedoms of the rest of us - just like Maya's judgement helps us.

I think that would be a great idea, especially if they're close run seats where Labour might win. It's also an example of the kind of thing those of us outside of the party can support, whereas I assume LWD and other members would have to distance themselves.

My only doubt is (as I've probably already said) that I think Starmer needs to be made to talk about this now, and that the election campaign will be very late in the day for making an impact.

I know a couple of women who live in marginal seats where Labour might have a hope of winning. They are wondering about standing as Independent Women or some such name. They can afford to put up the cash to stand and their plan would be to attend all the hustings and get their ten minutes to stand up, point out the way that Labour has betrayed women and offer themselves as an independent, pro-women alternative. They'll argue that spoiled votes don't really make a point, but voting for a pro-women candidate would. Obviously don't expect to win, but hope that standing up and speaking out will at least mean Labour doesn't go unchallenged.

You keep missing the point. You just endlessly repeat your one arguement based on one report and choose not to look at others.

And are effectively derailing this thread.

But now you have another one, where you can endlessly repeat one report and arrogantly ignore women who provide support to women who have suffered rape, including their attempt to get to court.

The rate of reported rapes that end in conviction is disgracefully low. However there is no evidence that this is due to jury behaviour.

Have you read the link to the comprehensive study of 15 years of rape trials that I posted? Throughout that 15 year period, the conviction rate for rape has been significantly higher than for other serious violent crimes. So what do you mean by juries being less likely to convict? Juries in rape trial are more likely to convict.

Juries are convenient scapegoat for failings of the police and judicial systems.

Juries currently convict 75% of men put on trial for rape

The "improved" conviction rates is because the CPS has consistently refused to allow cases to go to court unless it has a high chance of winning. And that is because prior to them taking this more stringent line, it was because of the number of rape cases that failed. Without context stats are meaningless.

Why do you think women have been campaigning and now the Scottish legal system is going to trial a period of Judge only rape cases. Becaue juries are less likely to convict particularly if it is her word against his.

So what, exactly, is your argument?

Again your conjecture that I am putting forward an "arguement". I am saying you are being niave and relying of the echo chamber of mumsnet to imagine that self id vs women's sex based rights is a number one issue..

Whether you or I like it or not, voters do not care or think this is a GE issue.

There would be a way of finding out, if in the run up to the next election you and some other women local to you, did some door stepping to tell local voters that you think this is a priority issue.

I think most people wouldn't even know what you are talking about, and even if they did would not think it a priority, and ask why cant people just be more "kind".

Very irritating. However, when politicians say that the public don't care about something, what they usually mean is that, "We know we have a weakness on this issue, compared to the other parties, and we want to shift the narrative to issues on which we are stronger". So I would not read into this that this is Starmer's true opinion - it's likely the complete opposite. Unfortunately, though I don't have any confidence that he will do anything other than hand-wring a bit from the sidelines.

Sorry posted too soon. Really didn't want a picture of Starmer or a Guardian front page on the thread (not to MNHQ didn't anyone ask you to imposed this on us - or was it the advertisers?).

But also, you could say, who would say that wouldn't he, especially in the guardian.

(On a slightly different note, but worth remembering that Labour, like the Tories, is actually made up of different factions. This looks like it will be an interessting read - Chris Mullin, who was a Labour MP for more than 20 years and a minister under Tony Blair, has won plaudits for the first three instalments of his political diaries, described as “wickedly indiscreet” and “a treat to be savoured”. Ex-Labour minister accuses Starmer of ‘moral cowardice’ over leadership (yahoo.com) )

The term ‘culture wars’ is really annoying

The media are bad for that especially left wing media

If it could be labelled women’s rights then it would actually get close to what we’re defending and talking about.

But yeh I get that Starmer loves it if he can avoid the whole topic

Labour is clearly under the impression that nobody cares about the "culture" wars (ie there isn't an issue just tories being anti-woke) and that the "real" issues that they are addressing will win them the election.

The local election results show Labour has banished the demons of Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn’s time as leader, while the Conservatives have badly misjudged the mood of voters by focusing on culture war issues, according to the party leader, Keir Starmer.

In a bullish assessment he is due to give the shadow cabinet, the Labour leader will accuse the Tories of ignoring voters’ real concerns. “The NHS trumps woke every day of the week,” he will say.

In a rare direct mention of culture war issues, increasingly seen by Sunak and his party as a means to attack Labour, Starmer will stress his belief that the Conservatives have miscalculated by appearing to focus more on such subjects than on core policies like health and the cost of living.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/voters-returning-to-labour-after-corbyn-and-brexit-keir-starmer-to-say

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/09/never-trust-a-politician-who-cant-say-what-a-woman-is/

Thanks for the heads-up. I've donated to all three. 💸

Civil liberties aren't half expensive. I must have donated hundreds to gender critical legal crowdfunders since Jennifer James first failed to take Labour to court. Still, every victory makes it harder for my employer to fire me if someone outs me to them and makes them more likely to rethink some of their poorly-written EDI policies.

That will be really interesting. Are there any precedents for suing political parties over excluding certain beliefs, I wonder? Interesting balance to be struck between equity and freedom of association.

"Shahrar"

And Shahrah's case is just the first to be heard. Dawn Furness and Emma Bateman are also sueing the Green Party. At least one other member is seriously considering it.

I wonder whether Shahrar Ali’s legal case against the Green Party is more important than we thought. If he wins it establishes that political parties shouldn’t discriminate within the party against people who believe there are two sexes and people can’t change sex. The trial date has been set for August this year.

It's a long game, alright.

As others have said the fight for women's rights in Labour is a long hall and can only be won inside all the parties. The UK is lucky we have voices standing up in all the parties Labour, SNP, Greens, Lib Dems, and the Tories. They are refusing to give up and it is the only way we can win long term.

It is true Starmer doesn't care about this issue and also most of the public don't but as the SNP has shown it has a unique power to derail things. As long as TRAs are determined to undermine women's safety it is going to come back against them. Trans criminals are going to keep carrying out crimes the Tories will use it as a wedge in the election to undermine Labour's claim to be serious on law and order. More and more medical issues will surface.

There will be a massive row inside Labour because the TRAs will demand Labour do more while Starmer will be desperate to avoid the issue. This is why GCs inside Labour have a huge advantage. The TRAs are dedicated but are so fanatical they are capable of wrecking their own cause. Their crusade against Rosie has utterly failed. So what GCs need is to organise and look like the real adults.

Dont forget that many rape trails fail because of juries

Not true, in fact. Juries currently convict 75% of men put on trial for rape (data here) and, for the last 15 years, the conviction rate for rape has been higher than for other violent crimes - 58% on average, compared to 48% for GBH, for example. This is despite rape having one of the highest rates of defendants pleading not guilty.

The percentage of rapes that lead to conviction is disgracefully low, but this is due to a failure to investigate and charge. If a case actually gets to court, the chance of conviction is good.

I have never said that. It is purely your conjecture.

So what, exactly, is your argument?

But you seem to be extending that premise, to argue that it follows from this that no one cares

I have never said that. It is purely your conjecture.

But I do think that despite headlines in some not all papers, most people do not think women's rights are under threat.

And I know from decades of being involved in women's liberation and feminism, that when it comes to the crunch, even if it is acknowledged that women will be disadvantaged, the majority of people will still assume women should take the hit, ie women are still second class citizens. Dont forget that many rape trails fail because of juries. And more often than not it is women on juries who dont want a man's life chances to be tarnished, and will give him the benefit of the doubt, over believing a woman.

I don’t think it’s just covered on FWR. If you look at pretty much any DM article on Starmer it comes up. And yes DM is Pooh poohed on here too but many people read it and politicians would love their votes. Hence Starmer writing articles on there.

The issue is does it stick enough at voting booth and can it translate into votes.

I do think that GE issues can be quite random so it’s not out of chat yet. If you look at issues that became prominent just before GE in the past. Then SNP and Penny M

I know people feel strongly on here, I’d love it to convert to votes generally too

Maybe the flare up hasn’t occurred yet over it but still will. Starmer hopes not. I hope so

Sorry, I can't follow your argument. Are you arguing that people are not interested in women's rights, as they are affected by trans issues? That just isn't true, as the examples that I gave above demonstrate. I have been involved in GC campaigning since 2012. The level of public awareness and concern is infinitely greater than it was then. Back then, most people looked at you as a mad conspiracy theorist, if you tried to convince them that men were in women's sports/refuges/prisons. Now, almost everyone is aware that this is happening, and many people have strong opinions about it.

If you are arguing that women's rights will not be the foremost concern in most voters' minds, then we are in agreement. I have never seen anyone on FWR argue otherwise. But you seem to be extending that premise, to argue that it follows from this that no one cares, so the views expressed here are irrelevant to politics. That simply isn't true.

Women's rights have never been the foremost issue in any election. Only a tiny minority of women have ever been active campaigners for women's rights. That has not stopped women achieving the vote, equal pay, the criminalisation of rape in marriage etc. Do you think that those issues were ever the foremost in voters' minds?

There are in fact only a tiny number of political issues that have enough salience to swing votes by themselves. Most voters are not single issue voters.

Why is it so important to you to believe that no one cares?

Stating a fact doesn't mean we also believe it, but it really is unrealistic to think that women's rights are in the forefront of voters minds.

If you go on any other SM outlet where people are discussing politics, it is either very straight forwardly how to get the Tories out, not just from Labour left leaning people, but also Tories who are fed up with the party antics.

Otherwise people are focused on the cost of living crisis, housing, the NHS and education.

I'm afraid it is a bit like cycling (this isn't meant to say women's sex based rights are on the same level) where there is the same dynamic. Very committed cycling fundamentalists have captured the attention of more left leaning parties. And without taking into account to cost to those who cant, or it is in impractical to cycle, make huge changes to people lives through block off roads, sending buses half way round the world to get to a spot that used to be 2 or 3 stops away. Let alone, particularly for women, those who have to drive because they take kids to school, an elderly relative to a day care centre (all in different locations), have to get to work on time, to leave on time to do shopping, pick everyone up, and be home in time to do the cooking.

In the areas where this is happening, discussion is really fraught, and yes the cycling fundamentalists go round accusing any one who opposes them of being climate deniers, right wing reactionaries. For some people this has really messed up their lives.

But the parties who are pro cycling are only interested in getting the support of those they think want this, and implement without acknowledging the consequences for others.

And there are lots of articles in newspapers, high octane discussion, but as far as I know has never featured as a General Election issue.

Although if implemented nation wide would change how people can or cant lead their lives.

Most people see this as just two groups of extermists fighting it out.

And, as I said, obviously women sex based rights are far more fundamental than cycling, but most people view the issue as two groups of extremists fighting it out.

Even the police. Did you see the link I posted to an article in the Police Oricle commenting on policing LWS in Hyde Park? It is a real eye opener in terms of level of awareness.