Labour canvasser today

I remember the anger here regarding "Ada Lovelace" and Balloo's child. But JW is not important/ a joke /has no influence /an accidental choice that might be rectified in the future?

Why?

Wallace is a bellend of the highest order however he was selected by his local Tory party to stand as an MP from a number of potential candidates - lord knows what possessed them but there you go. He was then elected by the ppl of Bridgend who had clearly taken leave of their senses but whatever. He wasn’t plucked off the street and planted in HoC by the government.

the women and equalities committee is a joke so Wallace fits in quite nicely

Thanks for this really useful

Keir Starmer (Labour):

Keir believes that ‘1 in 1,000’ women have a penis.

He proposes banning ‘conversion therapy’, which could criminalise therapists and parents who don’t affirm medical transition.

He supports legislation, which could criminalise misgendering someone.… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Ed Davey (Liberal Democrats):

Ed believes that women can “quite clearly” have a penis.

He supported Scotland’s attempt to introduce ‘self-ID’ for 16 years old.

He has also accused the government of “assaulting” trans people.

Rishi Sunak (Conservative):

Rishi has said that “100% of women do not have a penis”.

He used Section 35 to block Scotland’s attempt to introduce ‘self-ID’.

He has pledged to protect single-sex spaces for women under law.

He has told schools not to transition pupils.
(10/12)
Notice a difference?

Only one political party currently elected to Westminster stands up for biological reality, child wellbeing and women’s rights.

We need to send a message to those seeking election that they will not get our vote if they push gender ideology.

Yes the Tories have been crap for women but Labour will be even worse hence I’ll not be voting for either of them

The distraction has been: "Don't look at what the Tory government are actually doing to women's rights look at what non Tories are saying over there". Usually followed by: "Tory TRAs are not important/ a joke /pose no threat to women."

I've been on these boards for years, no way would any other party get a free pass for putting JW into the HoC, nevermind putting him on Women's and Equalities.

Found this summary of where political leaders stand on Twitter

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1681275671589289985.html

A pp confirmed Starmer Self ID doesn’t go far enough

He’s not some MP low down and fairly alone on views he’s the leader surrounded by similar views.

What is it people like about that? Nothing.

Starmer and Labour will be terrible for women’s rights. They are a full on gender ideology party.

Which is why posters deflect from answering any questions on them, won’t vote for them and generally use anything as a distraction.

It has no involvement in the selection of members of Select Committees.

This committee exists to propose the MPs that will form the committee stage of any bill placed before Parliament. It is a cross-party committee and its decisions are subject to a vote by the whole House.

Exactly, having done so much damage, the Tories are still failing to take the situation seriously. Why? Because they don't give a shit about women's rights. They spin on a sixpence and will say whatever, whenever as I've detailed above wrt PMs May, Johnson and Sunak.

Clinging to tribalistic party political loyalty is detrimental to women. Voting Tory is detrimental to women.

And where did I say it would be ok? My point is that I v much doubt the Tories take that appointment seriously at all, because I'm in no doubt that the only reason they've battened on to women's rights as an issue is because they can see what an utter clusterfuck has been happening north of the border, and they saw how unpopular rapists in women's prisons is with voter (one would not have thought that would need a focus group, but we are where we are). Plus the 'what is a woman' question makes Labour & the LibDems look utterly ridiculous, so of course they keep on pressing it. As someone said upthread, the choice at the moment is between shit and even shitter in terms of women's rights. Not inspiring in the least.

Jamie Wallis is a joke. No one locally expected him to win in 2019 which is why no proper due diligence was done on him at the time (see Private Eyes going back yonks for all his dodginess, or look at his Wiki entry). He won because of Brexit. I v much doubt he'll hold his seat next time round.

Do you think you might respond to any of my points above where I have evidenced where Conservative party MPs have given a shit about this issue?
Clinging to tribalistic hatred is no substitute for more a nuanced analysis.

I'm not sure what to make of that particular panel, myself - can anyone elnlighten us to the views of those particular MPs on this issue?

Well if it's just a few Tories having a laugh that would make it alright then. His appointment is not pointless, he's not there to make the tea.

I'm not asking anyone to vote Labour. I've never voted for them. I don't defend them. But I'm fucked if I'm going to let the lie that the Tories give a shit about women go unchallenged. The Tories happily and easily lie out of their faces on this issue. Deeds, well they are few and far between. Even now in 2023, they're still saying some men belong in women's prisons and are unable to provide guidance to schools.

Reports of a massive backlash to Tory PM May's proposals have been greatly exaggerated. The Tories are the party that ceded our rights to the TRAs and its such a shame that they don't extend their beliefs in free speech and conscience to the women reported to the police/their employers for retweeting JKR.

They are and will continue to be fuckers to women for as long as they're in power.

One would imagine that those that do bother tend to be the most invested in the issue - either one way or other.

By the way, does anyone know what has become of Jackie Doyle Price ( Tory MP on women and equalities) I liked her a lot and thought she performed really well.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/381/committee-of-selection

There is a Committee of Selection.

Make of that what you will!

Exactly. JW's appointment is meaningless without knowing any numbers of voting Tories. It could have been 5 of them having a laugh.

Again, not wanting to vote Labour on their current showing does not automatically translate into 'will therefore vote Tory'. It's more likely to mean 'will spoil ballot' in my case. And before anyone says 'well you'll let the Tories in', that's on Labour. Show me something I want to vote for, and I will. Call me a dinosaur/rights-hoarding bigot and I, erm, won't be voting for you.

Totally agree that there is a significant contrast in how free MPS of different parties are to voice their own opinions on this. Apparently, all parties elect their allotted number of committee members via secret ballot, not just the Tories. Whether they all bother to vote would be interesting to know.

I'd have to know who was on the "secret panel"? And why was it secret, do you know? Then, what it would tell me would be about who was on the panel, not about everybody who was a Conservative MP.

She didn't say secret panel, she said secret ballot.

Which just means the same as any election, your vote is anonymous and made in private.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/election-select-committee-chairs-and-members

I'd have to know who was on the "secret panel"? And why was it secret, do you know? Then, what it would tell me would be about who was on the panel, not about everybody who was a Conservative MP.

You can't have missed the fact that it has only been Conservative MPs speaking out on the issue and actually taking action? ( apart from Rosie Duffield, Labour). Not one member from any other party, apart from Joanna Cherry of the SNP, has spoken out.

Why do you think that is?

Do you think that it is maybe because free speech and conscience is given more free reign in the Tory party - and those with most sway have put their foot down when it comes to blocking Gender self Id both in England and in Scotland; in commisioning the Cass Review, and now giving new instruction to schools and to prisons regarding social transitioning and male offenders being placed in women's jails?

Could you respond to some of these points, please, and at least acknowledege the truth of it?

What it doesn't tell me is that JW has any influence over Government. JW was elected in the same way (i.e. democratically) as every other committee member. You may not like the results of a democratic process but, in lieu of a better system.....

It tells me that there are lots of gender extremists around and extremists vote them onto this committee.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4847393-wesc-scrutiny-session-of-ehrc-today-at-145pm?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

This is it.

Having watched the recent Equality Committee examination of the EHRC I think it's a good thing overall that all the extremists are on that Committee as their batshit ideas and prejudices get a public airing and rebuttal on the record.

There's a thread on it if anyone wants to watch that happening.