Anyone actually excited about a Keir / Labour govt?

[roarrfeckingroar]

I'm typically a Tory voter (one nation Conservative, just right of centre, nothing radical) and gender critical, so I'm wary of a Labour government. I worry they'll leave the country worse than it is now.

However, I absolutely agree we need a change. Things can't get much worse, can they? Idiots like Boris and Truss have made a mockery of what I understand of the Conservatives - namely economic competence - and I can't vote for them this time. I don't know who I will vote for.

Listening to LBC this evening, I hear a Labour MP talk about how Starmer is offering an "exciting programme" of change and I just don't buy it. Maybe he will he better, maybe he won't, but my real question is is anyone genuinely excited about Labour, or just looking forward to the back of the Tories?

So the Prime Minister is not even accountable to the nation and it's voters? Really?

Starmer isn't PM yet! I know he is the PM in waiting, but let's not jump the gun.

I do not understand how any woman can ignore the fact that labour has announced that it will remove sum of women's rights - in other words the rights of 52% of the population to appease a minuscule number of men in skirts.

Labour used to have the slogan for the many not for the few and yet they are throwing the many under the bus in favour of the few.

Until we have addressed this issue I don't see how we can discuss anything else.

I repeat women are 52% of the population and 52% or more of voters (because women live longer than men) so this is not some minority issue.

Could you link to where Labour has announced this, please?

Yes please. I seem to have managed to miss it.

I can't understand how any woman can ignore the fact that we're already under the bus. Thrown there by this Tory government who've reversed over us repeatedly.

So why does this make it OK for the Labour Party to continue to put men first?

Of course they are - via the MPs, not directly.

So why even have a Prime Minister then? I guess we could say, based on your view, that Tony Blair was not responsible for sending people into the Iraq war. He's 'only' the Prime Minister. He has no accountability. Right? Only individual MPs do.

How does that make sense?

Your version doesn’t make sense. Maybe you should find out how the system works, they used to teach this in schools once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpolcon/writev/842/m2.htm

So Tony Blair was not responsible for getting us into the Iraq war.

Got it.

Where have I said this?

I also would like links for this please.

The majority of MPs voted to go to war. The PM can’t act unilaterally without the consent of parliament. Did you read that incredibly clear and easy to understand Wiki explanation of how it works? I’d be embarrassed and ashamed to display such ignorance.

Of course not but he is the figurehead. As such, the buck stops with him. That's why they call him to be tried for war crimes - not any other MPs. I'd not the one displaying ignorance here.

I'd not the one displaying ignorance here.

I’m afraid you are. Nobody else is asking silly questions.

Excited no and concerned that many problems facing the UK like the NHS waiting lists, cost of living, decent housing, etc., can't be fixed overnight but I know Labour will be better for ordinary folk than this appalling Tory mess of a government.

So explain then why when it comes to the Iraq war, only Blair is accused of war crimes, and not every other MP at that time then.

The Blair government is accused of war crimes. Which is pretty rich, given that virtually every Tory MP voted for it and the then leader of the opposition said he’d have done exactly the same thing if he’d been in power.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/howard-under-fire-over-iraq-7247839.html

It’s irrelevant Tories would have done the same/supported the war Labour were in power

Labour acted shamefully during this time. I gave up my membership. Dr David Kelly should not be forgotten

It tarnished much of the success of New Labour

Genuine question. Why call it the Blair government, if Prime Minister means nothing? Why even mention the name Blair? If the Prime Minister is of no consequence and is not accountable for anything and means nothing?

To differentiate it from other governments. The government is always referred to by the name of the PM at the time, it’s political convention. I never thought I’d end up giving civics lessons on MN!

Yes, you are right that the top 4 countries according to this report have all adopted self ID (although some only very recently, eg Finland in 2023), but this in no way indicates that self ID is harmless. If trans women are being counted as females (sex) in this data - and that is an 'if', because I don't know - you would expect women's position in those countries to look even better than it was in the first place, wouldn't you? I can find no mention of self ID or gender identity in the report, so it isn't clear how data on sex and gender identity are being collected. As far as I can see this report doesn't ask the kind of questions (or collect the data) that would be needed to assess the impact of self ID on the position of women in those countries. The skewing of statistics is in itself one of the possible problems of self ID that has been pointed out by those who oppose it.

@BIossomtoes I think a lot of women sadly are simply not that political and the closest they get is the femail section of the Daily Mail- problem is the rest of the Mails agenda is then taken as gospel - rather than just an opinion-