I'm asking Keir a question about women's rights on 5 live - how to phrase it?

[JanefromLondon1]

I want him not to be able to give me the flannel that we have to be kind to the woMen. I want assurances that we do t have to share our spaces. I want to not sound like the very nervous person that am I!

Any help appreciated?

Jane, I hope you got yourself a jolly big glass of some top quality cordial/wine/gin/whatever and a good nights kip last night and manage to stay as anonymous as you can.

For you are legend.

Why were Jane's posts deleted?

@JanefromLondon1 👏👏👏👏 you were bloody brilliant 👏 👏👏👏

I think she wanted to remove those posts that could reveal her identity.

No meaningful solutions from any quarter for any of the catastrophic shambles the right have put this country in, including forcing the Labour Party to emulate them in order to avoid being beasted by a media that couldn’t even be trusted to extend basic decency to a dead teenage girl and her family.

Clearly no shortage of vacuously meaningless kudos to go round for visionless bickering, complete with strawman extrapolation and juvenile whataboutery, though.

We really are done for.

They think we are stupid enough to think they can both protect women's 'safe' spaces and mens access to them.

They call them 'safe' to allow men in because of course the mens spaces are not safe even though bringing the men into women's single sex spaces automatically makes them unsafe for women.

How many times over the last what, 8 years, have we pointed this out to these people who pretend they don't understand?

They are all as manipulative as the men who want in.

Also "safe" goes with the "tackling VAWG" line.

They know they have a "woman problem" and think that banging on about these things will get the little women back onside.

Jane, you knocked him right on his arse you legend!

No one has forced Labour to do anything - they have achieved a cluster fuck of a political party all by themselves.

Thank you Jane, you were amazing. Labour has just lost my vote thanks to you, I was still swaying until today. I have emailed my local candidate to tell her why.

I have also emailed my Labour candidate to tell her why I would not be voting for her. I would have been an easy vote for them to scoop up if not for this issue.

My Labour candidate came round that same day. He wasn't surprised when I asked about single sex spaces/ self id. He looked resigned but not cross (which they usually do).

Well done Jane

But I thought Angela said this didn’t come up on the doorstep, so surely he was flabbergasted! Or is dearest Angela not telling the truth🧐🤔

I think it was DJ Lippy who actually had a meeting with Rayner as her constituency MP.

Thank you to the magnificent Jane for her brilliant and incisive tackling of the slippery creature. She spoke directly and fearlessly for all women and girls. What a woman who shames our twaddling politicians and media.
I am living in dread at the thought of this one leading a government intent on inflicting more harm on women and children.

Yep

They brought in the GRA and will have to deal with the mess they made. They might keep slipping around but it doesn’t help

So many of you have posted compelling arguments for not voting Labour. I am torn as two of my children want me to as they will be. Another one is voting Green. I really don't know what to do as not voting is not an option.

It's YOUR vote, not theirs. If you do what they want instead of what you want, they get 2 votes and you get none.

I suppose you might as well get used to what you want being irrelevant. We may all need to get used to that.

I have asked my children who they would like me to vote for as I feel it is more their future than mine. I have no problem with that at all. I don't accept my life, thought, wants etc are irrelevant. That's defeatist!

If you feel that you're voting for your children's future, I hope neither they nor your grandchildren are female. We live in a current fashion of youth being lauded to the skies as the only humans worth it and older people despised as irrelevant: the thing they lack is your life experience, foresight and independence of thought; that comes as you get older. That is what you have to offer.

There are reasons why some of the atrocities in history involved troops recruited from 17-21 year olds. They could be easily persuaded and convinced to do these things in the name of the glorious future. Older troops could not. Why do you think Labour are desperate for children to have the vote?

I suppose too, we'd all better start preparing to be asked by our grand daughters why their brothers have rights that they don't, and why boys are more important kinds of humans. And why their options are: submit silently, or transition.

I see your point @UpThePankhurst but the reality is I probably don't have decades and decades left which is why I was thinking more about them, not because I don't think I have value. I know I do.

I have children of both sexes and have absolutely brought up my daughter that she can do and be anything she wants and the only thing she can't that her brothers can do is pee standing up. Then we worked out there isn't anything she can't do because she's not a boy. My sons have been brought up to respect women, care for them, listen and value them and that they are not better than their female sibling.

They think we are stupid enough to think they can both protect women's 'safe' spaces and mens access to them.

That is an excellent way of putting it, @AlisonDonut That should be picked up and used.

Jane, you are a hero!
More people need to be as you were with all politicians. You could tell you knew you were getting the usual prevaricating answers and “twaddle,” by the way you cut him off before he could even really get going. He deserved it.

It was during listening back to a clip of you yesterday it finally dawned on me who Starmer reminds me off with his, “When I was Director of Public Prosecutions” line: Uncle Albert from Only Fools and Horses! It’s just like, “during the war…”

Labour is a danger to women and girls.

I've been pondering this. Two things occurred to me:

1. How would KS reply if it was a TW who rang in? Would we hear a clearer answer?
2. When a party is as unclear about its intentions on an issue as Labour are about this one, so that no voter can say with any certainty WHAT Labour intend to do if they're elected, does that mean that a new Labour government can't claim they have a mandate from the people to carry out whatever it is they're currently not being upfront about? And does that also affect the agreement whose name escapes me but which has been mentioned this week, that if something's in the manifesto it doesn't go through the House of Lords because it's taken to be the will of the people, as they voted for it?

It seems to me that if a party's manifesto is unclear or self-contradictory, & voters question the future PM & he still doesn't resolve that but leaves voters not knowing what he will do or how he will resolve internal contradictions, then he doesn't have a mandate on those issues at all & he has no idea what the will of the people is.