Starmer: "trans-inclusive" conversion therapy ban, "modernise" the GRA, all hate crime to be aggravated offences as part of making every child "proud and confident"

James Cleverly publicly apologised in all the papers for his remarks

Crispin Blunt is no longer a Tory he is an independent
Andrew Rosenthall has been asked not to attend parliament by the conservative whip
so its is being taken very seriously by the Tory party.

They have all been criticised on here.

I agree, Marie.

"I mean, HC was more of the same technocratic stuff from the Democrat Party. Is it even arguable that she wasn't?"

Hillary Clinton is an interesting illustration of 'A woman's place is in the wrong'.

For decades she was attacked by the right for being what would be termed 'woke' these days - a dangerous feminist extremist who was involved in Civil Rights activities in the 60s, worked in free legal aid, children's rights, sexual abuse cases, violence against women campaigns, and who shock horror wanted to keep her name after she married. Worse still, she continued to campaign for health care andwomen's rights when married to the president, instead of being a decorative First Lady. And wore pants suits, for heaven's sake!
She was credited with popularising, if not inventing, the phrase 'Women's rights are human rights' in a speech in the 1990s

So all in all a dangerously radical pinko women's libber, unAmerican, unnatural, you name it.
Before any of her own goals- Benghazi, baskets, Bill or dodgy email servers - she was already targeted by the right as a woman with ideas above her station, to be taken down. Any of her presidential campaign speeches I saw on TV focused on issues like poverty, education, Black communities' and woman's rights. She was ridiculed for 'turning on the tears' when she showed emotion during a press conference. Trump's attacks on her were only the culmination of decades of sexist abuse from Republicans.

I don't think much of her one way or another, although I know women in Northern Ireland who remember her warmly for her personal involvement during the peace process. I'm agnostic about her merits as a presidential candidate, but she's a good example of when the wind shifts, none of your past history matters. After decades of being attacked for being a dangerous lefty bleeding-heart activist, her own side dismissed her as a remote humourless technocrat.

What female candidate would be able to withstand being too emotional/not emotional enough, politically inexperienced/technocrat, too feminine/not feminine enough, too radical/ not radical enough, too likeable/not likeable enough? Depressing.

I'll leave these here

Pavlik Morozov denounced his father for forging documents didn't he?

Perhaps Pavlik was on to something?😎
We just don't know.

"Home is the UK in 'home and abroad', but as it comes right after the child mention, my first thought was the SNP's proposal of people reporting 'hateful' comments around the dinner table."

Shades of Pavlik Morozov

I mean, HC was more of the same technocratic stuff from the Democrat Party. Is it even arguable that she wasn't?

Or is it just that voters are supposed to be good and vote for what they are told?

This is fair, but I think the follow on question has to be, what practically will change in other areas if the LP/CP get in?

I am not sure I see much change in direction for the Tories on social programs and such, even if they wanted to, I am not sure they could, and I think they are seriously lacking in interesting ideas. Possibly they will be able to get something done in terms of productivity by applying a reasonable economic strategy in a consistent way but I'm not holding out hope.

The thing is I don't see that Labour would do much differently either.

We are in an interesting place really, I've been voting for many decades and although I have in the last 30 years relocated several times in a radius of only 20 miles or so I've been in conservative stronghold that swung to Libdem until a sex scandal swung that back to conservative, and now in a labour seat with a 40 year MP retiring in a location where the local population are now unwitting participants in an uncontrollable immigration experiment they're paying for in every single dimension possible.

The local taxpayers will decide if they want to carry on paying for high cost nul contribution incomers.

Those of us that live on the sea borders probably see this in real time to an extent that the classic woolly minded liberal can't and won't and doesn't actually want to when it's far more pleasing to say bigot. You get your dopamine rush.

We get a place that is no longer a place. It's a churning unstable needy and insatiable circus of 100s of nationalities all here telling us what rights they have arrived to exercise, each of them with a woolly minded liberal at each hand to shout about how much money and comfort the moneyless and comfortles indigenous population have to work to give them, or not work and just shout about the apparant evil rich others who should be willing to leave their homes and pass on their very sustenance to anyone that could not be bothered to sustain their own birthplace.

I am watching the death of this little island at the wishes of socialists and their lazy nihilism.

I didn’t bother voting as I’m on my phone and I bet loads of others are reading and not voting. There’s 8 million members on Mumsnet apparently.

I hadn’t heard of that book but thanks for the info, I’ll add it to my reading list.

@LWSnow You know, you’re right, it does apply to Brexit too. And, as with Brexit, the political class are still insulting the voters that they feel owe them a vote because they’re the 'good party' as Kucinghitam has mentioned.

In general, I’m coming to realise that I don’t owe anyone my vote either because of my social class, my sex, my history or the political party’s history - the parties have to offer something I want or need. And I’m fed up of ideologues, in threads like this, telling me that what I have decided I want or need isn’t an important enough basis on which to allocate my vote. If either Labour, Torys, Greens, Lib Dems, SNP, Alliance, Sinn Fein, DUP, or UUP want women’s votes they need to take us seriously when we tell them that we’ve lost trust in them….And then actually do something to restore that trust. No coasting on past glories or promises of cake tomorrow.

It's worth seeing which party would've won in your constituency if the new boundaries were in place last time. We'd still be Tory.

I still think that's a dangerous game for them with the boundary changes, which only help the Tories.

Ultimately, 607 people voted on that thread. Assuming regular readers of AIBU are distributed equally across the country, that's less than two MNers per constituency, and this is why Labour thinks they can afford to lose the gender-critical vote.

Maybe. But they likely just brand us bigots.

Do you think Labour read threads like this? How many people are on mumsnet? Must be pretty considerable.

There's a really interesting book called Beyond The Red Wall by Deborah Mattinson published after the last election. I think it was Guardian Book of the Year. I don't know if anyone has read it?

It looks at the the Labour arrogance and dismissing of concerns that caused those loyal working class voters to finally turn away in protest at not being listened to.

I'm not sure that the best way of influencing voters is to insult them. It worked so well in the Brexit referendum didn't it?

I'm sure there was. People don't like being ignored, and then they don't like it again when they complain about ignored and get insulted. They end up really pissed off.

Thanks love.

I've had years of dealing with SEN teams trying to deny my kids lawful educations.

I've become hardened to lies and insults!

@UtopiaPlanitia im sure there was a large element of that in the Brexit vote

Yes.

There are still a large number of people who to this day refuse to see that Clinton was viewed by very many voters as more of the same technocratic stuff from the Democrat party, and that she didn’t help herself appear less elite with comments like that. For these people, it’s almost an article of faith that Clinton was rejected because she was a woman or because Trump voters were racist.

It would be crazy to think there were no sexist or racist voters, who had that reasoning for not voting for her, but, honestly, I get the impression from reading American commentators and articles written about 2016 voters etc that a lot of American voters were desperate for something new that would shake up what they saw as a system run in favour of certain establishment sections of society and, for whatever reason, they latched onto Trump as that something new, or even as a 'Fuck You' vote to show the Democrats that their voters shouldn’t be taken for granted. Sometimes if people are feeling angry or hopeless enough they want to punish the politicians that make them feel ignored.