Voting to "Get the Tories Out" part 2

[AdamRyan]

Follow on to this thread to continue discussion

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4978642-voting-to-get-the-tories-out?page=40&reply=132044464

Ah yes Brexit, another Tory idea that has cost the country a fortune, money that could have been spent on women's services etc & has meant we now rob the dev world of their medics and carers.

Even some very GC posters never voted for it.

Going to go through this now.

Properly funded services will NOT remove males from single sex spaces. It will not resolve the fact that charities are refusing funding to organisations that don't allow any males in their services. There is no 'magic money tree'. Even better funded services rely on charitable donations. What is needed is clarity over the meaning of 'single sex services' in the Equality Act. This needs to be government driven. It was a badly worded Labour piece of legislation. Labour can fix it if they see fit.

As far as I can see Kemi Badenoch is looking at trying to address these issues. If there is not time before a GE will Labour do so? They will be in government then, it is not an unreasonable question.

Yes funding for third spaces is desirable. If it can't be funded then that doesn't mean I think that males should be in women's spaces. It harms women too much as demonstrated upthread. Women should not pay the price here. I'm sure the trans charities can dig deep to fund some of the spaces, I'll happily try to fundraise with them.

I think that unless these anti women policies which have come about, perhaps as an unintended consequence, of badly drafted Labour legislation are address by Labour (or any other government), then any government who continues to fail to address them knowing the harms is fundamentally anti women.

People on this thread act as though this is too hard to fix. It really isn't too hard if you are prepared to say that women, as a sex class, matter equally to males.

I'm a remainer.

Perhaps Brexit was the wrong example. I just think trying to shame women into lowering our boundaries is wrong.

Our local news has just reported Somerset Council is having to deal with a £100m shortfall, 5 recycling centres will close as will council toilets.... how can you expect Labour to address this, potentially 12 months from a GE?

I live close to the bankrupt Labour Birmingham.

I have doubts that Labour will have success with economic issues too.

I'm getting really fed up with this now.
I'm not trying to "shame you into lowering your boundaries"
I'm trying to 1) point out that Labour have said they will do exactly what you want, so I don't know why you still claim they are "anti women" and need to reassure you and 2) question why you think not voting would help achieve what you claim is your number 1 priority.

The first council to go bust was Tory Northamptonshire - it somehow managed that even with the enhanced funding its own government gave it.

I'm getting fed up with it too -

1. Labour have not said they will do what I want. Even the guardian article which the quote comes from acknowledges it does not go far enough. Unless and until they address this with proper reassurances I have no confidence they will protect women, the issue has been fudged and will continue to be fudged. They have politicians who are clear that they will not back pro-women changes to these acts so how you expect me to have confidence is beyond me.
2. It is up to me whether I feel Labour deserve my vote. I don't. They know they haven't gone far enough, the papers tell them, women tell them yet they won't go far enough!

The problem with this whole debate is for a large section of GC posters the only answer is Kemi Badenoch, which is never going to be acceptable to the majority of the British public due to her very right wing position on a range of issues.

I can't stand her views on education.

But it doesn't mean she can't do good things on sex based rights.

But you can’t pick and choose which bits of her views suit you. She’s a package and her abhorrent views would prevail as well as those you like.

Good job I'm not a Tory voter then isn't it?

I think it is a good thing she is looking at the harms to women of these pieces of legislation, it might force Labour's hand.

I don't think any party is going to give you the guarantee you are after, that leaves you in a difficult position.

Rosie Duffield is still a member of the LP so she must believe in what they stand for even if she disagree with certain parts.

I'm glad that Rosie has taken that view. The way that she has been treated is abhorrent. She is a strong woman who hopes that Labour will do the right thing eventually.

It is such a shame that no party will take steps to address the wrongs done to women by gender ideology but I am particularly disappointed with the Labour stance on this, it is not a progressive position to put the wishes of males above the needs of women. Labour could and should stand up for women.

Properly funded services will NOT remove males from single sex spaces. It will not resolve the fact that charities are refusing funding to organisations that don't allow any males in their services. There is no 'magic money tree'. Even better funded services rely on charitable donations

We shouldn't be relying on charitable donations.
Labour wouldn't be promising unfunded tax cuts, so will have more money for public services, such as DV services, like i said and which was never answered, whats more important? Single sex toilets or someone's life?

The reality is that if we don't get a Labour Govt, we will get a Tory one, thats the way it is with FPTP.

That means less public services, more poverty, more dead women at the hands of violent partners, Sunak promised this yesterday - cuts to benefits and public services to fund tax cuts.

This is the stark reality.

I don't share your faith that Labour will be able to fund public services without charitable donations.

And on your point about DV services. Why do you mention single sex toilets as if that's the only implication? It really minimises the issue, DV services are sometimes women's refuges, they should not be open to any male, particularly if a woman is fleeing an abusive male.

We are going to get a Labour government, I have every confidence of that. That's why I want to know what Labour will do.

I ve explained multiple times, as i said earlier, you are looking for things to justify your POV.
If you start from the position that Labour wont do x or y, then nothing they say or anyone on here will change your mind.

e.g when Starmer changed his stance on what is a women, he didn't get any acceptance, just a stream of comment by posters on here along the lines of "well i still dont trust him..." and they never will.

The Tories have closed down DV refuges, so now the numbers of women dying at the hands of a violent partner is going up.

Labour will reverse this & tbh that alone is reason enough to vote for them, you can't access a single sex space if you are dead.

Read their website? wait as we will all have to do, for their Manifesto?

If Labour are really going to reverse this then why won't they clarify some fairly simple questions to clarify women's concerns. The fact that even the Guardian acknowledges it doesn't go far enough, means that it doesn't. it isn't just ME saying that!

Labour are going to get in, the fact that I want Labour to be clear on this doesn't mean I'm hateful or a Tory or would rather dead women. Such hyperbole.

Why can't we have both? It should be easy.

e.g when Starmer changed his stance on what is a women, he didn't get any acceptance, just a stream of comment by posters on here along the lines of "well i still dont trust him..." and they never will.
Exactly. This is why a discussion is ultimately fruitless.

Even the Guardian acknowleges it doesn't go far enough, yet you are satisfied?

I never said any of those things about you.

The fact is though is the Tories have presided over these things, they have said they will cut services still further, so more deaths, less single sex spaces, less DV services & more poverty.

At the risk of repeating myself, Lab cannot promise things until they know the state of the country and its finances... if they did, you and others would be shouting "How will you pay for it"

How will you feel if in fact Labour don't get in because a lot of women abstain or vote Conservative over this issue?

That is a potential outcome from your approach. If you are happy with that I don't know why you wouldn't own the courage of your convictions and vote Conservative so Kemi can continue her excellent work.

Can you link where they said that, because I haven't seen it and it's not in the article I quoted?

It's not going to happen but in the highly unlikely event it does I will blame Labour not the women who take a stand.

They have an opportunity to be clear, they KNOW this is what is preventing some women from voting yet fail to address it.

Badenoch doesn't give a shit about Women, she is playing politics with a very important issue.
She blames the GRA, the ECHR the Eq Act.

The Tories have been in for 13 years, they ve had plenty of time to change the law but as i linked too on the 1st thread, the Govt believes the GRA strikes the right balance and has no plans to change.

There was also no mention of the Eq Act in the Kings speech, so there will be no changes in this parliament.

Why isn't she honest about this? instead of politicking.

I have paraphrased but it states that it won't satisfy either side of the debate under the headline and gives reasoning from the GC point of view further down the article. I've got to go out for a meeting now so I can't look it up.