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"

Yes, there will; but half of those who will vote Labour don't really expect much change at all. In fact. Many Labour party voters actively hate Starmer and see him as 'right wing'.

Personally, if Labour does get elected I do hope they can make some changes for the better - but I know, at best, it will just be 'tinkering around the edges'. The whole of Europe, and beyond, is having a crisis at present, albeit with the focus of that crisis being in slightly differing areas.

I'll not be voting Labour though - as I cannot bring myself to have any responsibility for what they intend to do regarding gender ideology - further cementing it, and punishing 'wrong think' through increased hate crime legislation. The part of Labour that has embraced 'progressive' american identity politics is a total anathema to me.

And I cannot get the the thought of my own MP; and the likes of Nadia Whittome; Lloyd Russel Moyle; Ben Bradshaw; Dawn Butler; Michael Cashman; that recently defected Stonewall board member ( Ian Anderson); Angela Eagle, and many many others out of my mind. Not a chance!

Can we have field another candidate to stand against that weasel Wes Streeting too please? He’d love it if Kellie toppled Keir. He’s already on manoeuvers.

Either Labour do not require gender critical women and men's votes to win the next election or they do.

If Labour does not need our votes:

then we may vote as we please, up to and including the Monster Raving Loony Party and Labour will still win.

If Labour does need our votes:

why is Labour choosing to imperil its electoral chances? Why is Labour foregoing its opprtunities to form a government and its chance to enact any policies, e.g. NHS, education, and so on, rather than compromising on its trans policies?

If they'd rather stay out of government than compromise on the trans policies, then they don't feel very deeply about saving the NHS, do they?

And why am I supposed to ignore that?

It saddens me that you are not a squirrel!

if i was a squirrel then I’d deffo be that squirrel

From the article (Labour councillor who fell asleep during CSA briefing): "People fall asleep at work all the time, don't they?"

No, they really don't. Nurses on 12 hour shifts, bus drivers, teachers, none of them fall asleep at work, let alone all the time. You fucking melt.

We are truly lions led by donkeys.

Shortening the waiting list for people who need gender confirmation surgery to the NHS average will barely impact the NHS, and shortages of HRT are not down to transgender people.

Tell that to women who need urgent breast surgery for breast cancer. There are a finite number of specialist breast surgeons in the UK and a finite number of days in the year they are able to operate. Surgery by a specialist breast surgeon is important for treatment outcomes. Fast tracking “gender affirming” mastectomies on the NHS will adversely impact women (and men) needing cancer surgery.

There really is no end to DadJoke’s callous disregard for women, is there?

I noticed a lot of comments BTL under Debbie Hayton’s book serialisation in the DM were questioning why gender affirming surgery was being funded on the NHS. I’m inclined to agree, particularly give the (as yet) unknown costs rectifying complications later on.

If he was to do a complete reverse ferret I just wouldn't buy it now. Another hoping for a GC independent.

Well, if he doesn't, you know who'll get the blame, don't you? 😃

Me neither!

That's interesting. I'm not sure Keir 'Bread Pudding' Starmer is going to be inspiring enough to achieve that swing.

A rough guide to the swing Labour need. This is the version from the BBC.

"The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945."

The research was by election experts Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher along with David Denver in Scotland and Nicholas Whyte in Northern Irelannd.

THIS.
It's not difficult. There are countless ways of acknowledging the unintended consequences of all this. The electorate aren't stupid. They see what's happening to the NHS, they're horrified that children are being gaslit into believing they can change sex. The steady stream of court cases - both those evidencing the bullying of women out of institutions and the criminal cases where the Isla Brysons, Andrew Miller/Amy George & Abbi Taylor's of the world expose male crimes attributed to women, expose massive anti social behaviours.

The fact that Labour with their collective intelligence haven't been able to find the language to clearly separate them from all this is truly astounding.

Because they're scared of offending Stonewall?

So you are terrified about those things, but you are going to vote for them on the basis Sunak says women don't have penises?

No - on the basis that Starmer says that women can have penises.

Knowing that men aren't women really isn't a very high bar for someone seeking public office to clear.

If Starmer can't clear that bar, and cedes sanity to the Tories, it's on him.

If Starmer and Labour really care that much about getting the Tories out of power, why are they so determined to self-sabotage by beclowning themselves?

Boundary changes always seem to hurt Labour more, and the next election will be no exception.

I don't think the electorate is so enamoured by Labour that they'll get a larger swing than Blair did. It doesn't feel anything like 1997 did, IMO.

pmsl

Yep this

Seriously if they get in and LGBTQ+EVERYOTHERLETTEROFTHEALPHABET go to the top of the health care queue then that night that involved two bottles of rum and a husband and wife back in 1992 is going to be my trump card to get into the B category.I

Edited to correct the year of my debauchery

There probably will be a record swing to Labour, a lot of people are going to want change - and then be disappointed when nothing much happens because the economy is fucked. That means Labour will throw women further under the bus so they can claim to have done something when it comes to the election after next.

My vote can help deny legitimacy for removing women's rights.

It saddens me that you are not a squirrel!

And I agree with this too. I have spoiled my ballot several times - not now. Fuck the LP if they cannot even bring themselves to say that women do not have penises and that women and little girls deserve their own spaces - I mean FFS.

IT IS NOT MUCH TO ASK!

This a million times over. The die hard Labourites cannot believe that this matters to women so much.

Are you sure? Given they need a record swing, I'm not sure it's nailed on.