To think that Labour have just shot themselves in the foot?

[Redrosetat]

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760?s=19&t=wqgtbWPG_X1xZDMhuF871A

‘Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.

Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

@Keir_Starmer is terrified of debate on safeguarding & his MPs actively work to ignore the concerns of constituents’

No issue with this so long as there is also a single sex option for women who need or want them.

I haven't said that.

This whole thread is about how Labour are worse. I am pointing out they are not.

12 torys delayed.
9 labour delayed.

Yet this whole thread is covered in culture war lies and diversions.

It's not me that's the quarter wit.

12 tory
9 labour

Yet this whole thread is covered in culture war lies and diversions

Which 'culture was lies' are on this thread please?

Earlier in the thread I thought it had been agreed that in some situations men could be in women's toilets, much as they are presently?

Labour MPs did most of the dirty work. It is not debatable. It is factual. But you know this.

Third spaces are a good way to go.

It means women wouldn’t need to validate males through access

Not all women consent and a no should matter

TW just do not pass.

Many of them do. I know one who you’d never suspect was anything but a perfectly ordinary young woman.

You are talking about male cleaners or maintenance workers. When there is a sign up.

Or boys under the age of 8.

This is not the gotcha you are making it out to be.

You knowing one TW who passes, even if they would to others, does not prove that most do. There's not one tw in the public eye who passes.

So some men in women's toilets are fine by you. Thanks for the clarification.

Is now a good time to remind ourselves of this.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

I didn’t say most, did I? I was responding to a post that said none do. Which is evident bollocks.

I wouldn’t bother. But maybe they’re suggesting all males put up a sign when they enter 🤔

😂🤷‍♀️

I have literally know idea what point @JessS1990 is trying to make 🤔.

Well I don’t see why you get to decide clarity shouldn’t be provided. You don’t speak for me and a fair few others who do want it. Just don’t listen if it’s of no interest.

Labour seems more concerned with hiding the issue, than being clear.

One could say the same about Badenoch to be fair.

Labour seems more concerned with hiding the issue, than being clear.

Labour’s more concerned with addressing this kind of thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/16/desperate-neglect-teachers-washing-clothes-and-finding-beds-as-poverty-grips-englands-schools

I think it is becoming clear that neither the tories (let's not forget all this gender malarkey picked up steam on their watch) nor Labour (babies are born 'without a sex') can be trusted to treat women and children like human beings. I think The Party of Women could be a serious (and much-needed) political disruptor in that it will bring together voters and prospective parliamentary/council candidates of a range of political ideologies in one political party. All with the theme of women's rights and safeguarding of children at the core of those ideologies. That won't be easy in terms of unifying those different politics, but it could potentially disrupt the two-party model.

it could potentially disrupt the two-party model.

Unlikely when even UKIP couldn’t manage it.

UKIP didn't bring together a range of political ideologies. All they brought together were ultra tories.

Yes I suppose that’s why they’re keeping the two child benefit cap and not reinstating the bankers’ bonus cap.

They’ll have nothing extra but they will have gender and it’s lobbyists.

Its not a safeguarding issue that so many live in poverty.

Do we have an explanation as to why it has been so important for the past 14 years for the rich to get richer whilst the poor have been getting poorer?

I understand it is very important that the rich pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than for instance teachers and nurses do, and this is because if the rich were taxed they would not invest all that money they have that they don't really need, but instead do something else with it.

The Tories though are currently trying quite hard to disrupt the two-party model, with their even further right off-shoot soon to overtake them in the polls.

What has the bankers’ bonus cap to do with children living in poverty?