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’

But still there is no point in posting incorrect information 🤷‍♀️

Fucking hell.

Oh you.

Always…

The poster was not correct even if you try to go on the attack

Crap gifs really should go. They don’t add much

Everyone is being promised shorter waiting lists. If he’d been talking to a group of young mums he’d have promised better health care for families. Everyone knows how this stuff works.

Eassierfor him to remember? Are you forgetting he was a distinguished barrister and now holds a responsible position?

They are ridiculous!

This isn’t about lobby groups, it’s about an audience at a particular time.
Any news on the insults I am supposed to have used to you?

They clog up the thread with some irritating looking man as if it’s some great take down

The poster is me. You haven’t provided evidence I was wrong yet. Or explained what insult I’m supposed to have delivered.
Are you at all economical with the truth, eastern?

The reasoning is in the post you won’t read. It’s no biggie to me if you do or don’t but I won’t re type just scroll back

To be fair, it was an elaborate and clever take down . I saw that gif and I thought that’s you told @EasternStandard ..

I don’t really like gifs, doesn’t matter who posts them. They can take up a awful lot of room on the thread

Blossom, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

What you are now trying to detract from is that whether this is prioritising trans health care or simply cutting waiting lists (Starmers word's) , there is no evidence base to 'trans health care' in the first place. Especially for children.

Labour has said it will cut waiting lists and will ban talking therapies (conversion therapy in 'all forms ) for trans gender people.

This means that it is promoting healthcare which has such limited/ no evidence base and is experimental in a group of vulnerable people/ Children.

All at the same time as making it easier for men to get GRCs to be legal women etc etc.

You can choose to nit-pick my original paraphrase (for which I clearly apologised) in an attempt to divert attention but it is crystal clear that you are trying to detract from the indisputable nonsense in what he clearly did say. Which political party would promise it's members to even 'cut' waiting lists for medicine which has no evidence base when we have massive waiting lists for cancer patients and other serious medical conditions ?

I said earlier that the mainstream reports were behind paywalls. It is the context that is important here, as you said. In what context don't you have concerns about the potential waste of precious NHS funds for cutting waiting lists for experimental treatments in the context of cancer patients not being seen within the two week wait?

I’ll read it as soon as you show me the insult I’m supposed to have used. I mean, if you lied about that why should I trust anything else you say?

😬

He didn5 even say trans health care, based on your own posts…

So which urgent care for trans people is he cutting waiting lists for if it is isn't trans health care.
I mean this is exactly the problem isn't it?

He sits so firmly on the fence it is stuck up his backside.

I'm desperate to be proved wrong on all of these things so why the fuck doesn't someone in the Labour Party actually say what they mean?

The problem is that he is trying to appease the TRAs and women who want to protect children and single sex spaces. Not one person can actually work out what the intentions are!

So he could end up losing swathes of voters because no one has a clue what he actually stands for .

Starmer if you don't mean that you will cut waiting lists for experimental trans health care will you just say so? If you don't intend to ban talking therapy for gender non conforming kids, will you just say so? If you intend to protect women's single sex spaces by amending the Equality Act, will you just say so? If you don't intend to compel speech and treat non-compliant women as though we have committed a hate crime will you just say so?

Ta very muchly, If you can't even have a conversation with us about this without having front benchers calling women bigots / rights hoarding dinosaurs or people like Lloyd Russel moyle being aggressive to dissident women then that might help. Oh and an apology to Rosie might help too.

Exactly. I thought he was talking about lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans healthcare, givens that’s the group he was talking to.

You do know that trans people get sick just like everyone else, don’t you @lifeturnsonadime. They’re not immune from cancer and heart disease any more than you or I.

What I am taking from this is no one actually knows what Starmer means or intends.

We are all second guessing.

Perhaps Starmer might want to clarify if he wants women who have our doubts about his intentions towards our spaces and our children wrt harmful experimental drugs?

He knows that many women are asking these questions. If he could give satisfactory answers many women will vote Labour.

So I do wonder why it was, if Starmer is on the same side regarding experimental drugs there were Labour MPs trying to prevent open discussion. by stopping the Private Members Bill on the subject?

I think the trans thing is probs pretty low on the list for most politicians tbh, same as for most of the general public.

Now whether you like Starmer or not he doesn't strike me as a stupid man.

And given this thread, he would be most foolish to do anything now beyond what he had said. He is a politician. Conspicuous lack of upside and serious downside.

But equally, I think the same applies to the Conservatives. So that's where it will stay until post the election.

Oh and Blossoms of course I know that other people get sick, which is why I can't get my head round why he was telling LGBT groups that he was cutting waiting lists for them? If he meant for all people why was he suggesting it was a benefit to that group , he could have said I am cutting waiting lists for all, but he said he cutting them specifically for LGBTQ people.

1. So does he mean he is cutting waiting times for trans health care (this is a reasonable interpretation given that that care is specific to that group as there is no specific care in relation to LGB people) or
2. does he mean he is cutting it for all people - if so why did he tell LGBT people that he was cutting lists for LGBT people, rather than for everyone? And why say that in a discussion about specific benefits of a Labour government to that group?
3. Or does he mean that he is generally priortising LGBT people by cutting their waiting lists over and above other in respect of non LGBT specific care (this is the least likely interpretation) given the fact that there would be very little political appetite were LGBT people to jump waiting lists for cancer care for example.

Most of the reporting press, have interpreted it as 1, which is what I think he means and what you have called me intellectually dishonest over.

If this is wrong it is very easy for him to clarify and I will be more than happy to be proven wrong.

No he isn't stupid, he's a lawyer, good with words and using one's that are open to multiple interpretations, so think you a right.

I think he will lose quite a lot of votes over the fence sitting though. Probably from both 'sides' of the women's rights / children's safety divide.

Most of the reporting press, have interpreted it as 1,

Why can’t I find it then? My research skills are pretty advanced and I can’t find any news source that says that.

It’s as clear as day that he means 2. And he specified that group because he was addressing them at the time.