General election tomorrow - who do you vote for?

[IaminRome]

I'm so sick of this government and reading a lot of the posts on here, it feels like on the one hand, so are lots of people, but there are also lots of other people who are very sceptical about labour or lib dem or greens. Added to which, there are so many issues at the moment, I know there's a lot of GC and what makes a woman, that is particularly important at the moment, and cost of living, private rentals, the environment, etc etc

So knowing what you know about the parties, if there was a general election tomorrow, who would you vote for..

YABU - Tories
YANBU - Labour
Comment for a third option

I used to be green, but I'm so not sure any more. So I think I'd vote labour, to stand best chance of keeping Tories out. (What I'd really like to vote for is a more representative government)

Throughout this thread I have criticised Labour, not people who intend to vote Labour.

Those of you who can't see further than "get the Tories out" have criticised me, and others who refuse to do the right thing and vote Labour.

Yeah you do.

It's always the way. Labour followers take a difference of political opinion so personally. Always have done.

Throughout this thread I have criticised Labour, not people who intend to vote Labour.

You haven’t. You’ve called me personally simplistic, childish and disingenuous. You’ve told at least one poster that they don’t understand the issue. And you’ve accused me of lying.

*Labour have said that self ID is not a priority. They have not said they will not do it. And unless it says in their manifesto that they will not do it, I won't be helping them get into power’.
Not saying you are not going to do something is very different from being ‘determined’ to do something. But without the hyperbolic language it is more difficult to justify the single-mindedness.

@Blossomtoes is it time for us to be accused of being MRAs?

I'm a representative of a local council and I don't want to put a buffer zone around a nearby abortion clinic because I think that would only draw attention to where it is. Right now it manages to operate pretty discreetly and we don't have problems with protesters, but if we had to put up a buffer zone people might get wind of it and decide to protest just outside the buffer zone.

Having national buffer zone legislation doesn't mean you have to enforce it if no protests are happening though, does it? And Google being what it is, anyone could find out where your discreet abortion clinic is anyway.

What that legislation would allow you to do is to set up a buffer zone and intervene if some forced birth nutters found your clinic on Google and decided to protest at that location. Simples. The distance in the legislation is 150 metres which in an urban area is quite a lot.

What is the difference between national buffer zone legislation which you don't have to enforce and having the ability to impose a buffer zone locally if you wish to?

I thought the point of national buffer zone legislation was that they would have to enforce it everywhere.

What is the difference between national buffer zone legislation which you don't have to enforce and having the ability to impose a buffer zone locally if you wish to?

The difference would be that if there were to be a local issue with protestors and the council wilfully (or because they were in sympathy) did nothing, they would be forced to enforce a buffer zone because there was a law requiring them to do so.

Given that this legislation doesn't exist, you seem remarkably well informed about its contents.

It’s not difficult to research what was proposed - and strongly supported by the Lords. I suspect the reason it failed in the Commons, despite being presented in the Lords by a Tory peer, was because it was put forward by Stella Creasey.

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/health/female-health/a42722555/house-of-lords-buffer-zones-abortion/

But it appears nobody here watched the debate, and so we do not know what arguments were made against it.

If I were an MP I would have attended the debate, listened, and made my decision based on the evidence presented to me, not on the basis of who had put forward the proposal.

Even if that person believes in the female penis and is therefore quite difficult to take seriously.

From what I remember the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Women’s Aid were in favour of abortion clinic buffer zones but Sajid Javid said buffer zones were not a proportionate response because legislation already existed to deal with protestors who caused any harm.

Well, those are all clearly people who have zero interest in protecting women .

The only opposition I can find online is from Right to Life whose objection was that it would criminalise its members. 🙄

Have you managed to remember whether you watched the debate yet?

How many of them are MPs?

@MargotBamborough why don't you read up on the debate in Hansard and tell us all about it?

I think Claire Fox spoke against abortion clinic buffer zones.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-11-07/debates/EC65DD6F-B62F-44ED-B633-F3442703A558/FamilyPlanningClinicsPublicOrderLegislation

This could help you start.

None. Nor are the various public bodies named above who were consulted for their expertise, which the government proceeded to ignore.

So the arguments are basically

1. the protesters are offering help (but they could do this without shouting and showing graphic images)
2. freedom to protest (oh the irony, looking back to 2017 from the year 2023). If the protest is against the legality of abortion, then outside a clinic is not the place for it because clinics do not make policy.

Maybe I will.

I wouldn't want to draw automatic conclusions about why people had voted or abstained in the way they had without having at least attempted to follow the debate though.

I certainly think it is very unwise to draw such conclusions without having followed the debate and then use them to scaremonger about the Tories wanting to restrict our abortion rights, when that wasn't even the subject of the debate in question.

For what it's worth, I do think it is entirely possible that some people voted against purely because it was Stella Creasy who proposed it. And that in itself is problematic.

Stella is actually quite unhelpful to women's rights at the moment. Ordinarily it would be wonderful that there is a young female MP who is so passionate about matters affecting the female sex, and who is constantly banging the drum and raising awareness about abortion rights, maternity leave and other forms of sex discrimination. But unfortunately, that person is getting a reputation for being a loony.

Because although she clearly does care about those issues, and although she is making very good and valid points, she also cares deeply about her own career in the Labour Party. She knows what a woman is and she knows what female means. She knows that trans women are neither. But she also knows that if she is to have any future in the Labour Party, she must do a marvellous impression of someone who truly believes that women can have penises. So she's embraced it. She isn't even doing a half-hearted, slightly embarrassed, "it's complicated" and "sex is not the same as gender" like Anneliese Dodds, who looks like she wants the earth to swallow her up every time she is asked this question. No, Stella is leaning right into it and saying, "Of course a woman can have a penis! Trans women are female!"

And that completely undermines her credibility. It means that when she stands up in Parliament to talk about maternity leave or buffer zones around abortion clinics, instead of listening to her, Tory MPs are going to nudge each other and snigger "Here comes Stella the loony! She thinks women can have penises! Hahahaha!" and switch off.

It's deeply unhelpful. We want these issues to be raised and debated by serious, credible politicians, not cowardly lightweights like Stella who are too afraid to state the fucking obvious in case it gets them cancelled on Twitter.

Tory MP Natalie Elphicks said that Pro Life groups praying outside an abortion clinic isn't a protest and isn't intimidation so buffer zones are not needed. Only not as succinctly.

But we are talking about the Commons debate on the subject so I would like to understand why, if it is such a no brainer, the buffer zone argument didn't win.