Labour can't win

[verdantverdure]

Unless absolutely SHEDLOADS of people who voted Conservative in 2019 vote Labour this time.

That's right, isn't it?

You keep saying the Tories screwed over a lot of people to justify why you are voting Labour (I am not a Tory voter btw) but conveniently ignore Labour's dodgy dossier that lead parliament to vote for an illegal war that otherwise wouldn't have happened. The illegal dossier was created by Labour to get the war vote over the line in Parliament.
yet you constantly say you prefer Labour over the Tories screwing people over. I agree it is not a great choice (being screwed over or killed in an illegal war) but most people's moral compass would suggest the latter is far worse than the former. Hence why I will never vote Labour again. But hey ho who cares about hundreds of thousands killed in Labour's illegal war?

I don’t know who you mean, can you give a name?

I can think of two who post and I have no issue with it. The more invested in single sex spaces for women the better.

You keep saying you aren't voting Labour- fair enough . So who are you voting for?

*women's rights issues. Women not wanting men in female spaces. Not 'trans issue' as 'GC people' have no issue with transmen.

One day you might get it.

as 'GC people' have no issue with transmen

Have you asked the trans men about that?

The illegal dossier was created by Labour to get the war vote over the line in Parliament

They didn’t need to. Howard would have whipped his MPs anyway.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/howard-under-fire-over-iraq-7247839.html

I do think we should be looking at the parties how they are today, rather than how they were 15 or 20 years ago

I don't think the people banging on about people from decades ago who are no longer in politics want to talk about current events like flatlined wage growth, flatlined economic growth, the imposition of the highest tax burden for 70 years and the doubling of government debt combined, somehow, with the most underfunded public services and a lack of of investment across the board.

So basically, you try to convince people of the Evils Of Labour by listing a whole bunch of things that were actually done by the Tories. And then when it's pointed out to you that you've actually just proved the opposite of what you were trying to prove, you calmly continue that it DOES actually prove what you meant it to prove because (according to your assertion, based on no evidence whatsoever) Labour will do these things that were done so badly by their enemies even worse.

You really are completely ridiculous. If you're a bot, you're not a very good one.

Howard may not have had the support of his cabinet in the first place - your link suggests as much. He would not have voted in favour of Blair's motion (or lied) either;

Opposition Leader Michael Howard [said] he would not have voted for the motion that paved the way for war, although he still believed the invasion was right.

The Tory leader argued that the Government motion voted on in March last year referred explicitly to Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles" now known not to have existed.

"If I knew then what I know now, that would have caused a difficulty. I couldn't have voted for that resolution," he said.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/voters-think-blair-lied-over-iraq-7224860.html

From my article

Michael Howard was put on the defensive over Iraq today after saying he would have gone to war even if Saddam Hussein had no weapons arsenal. The Conservative leader came under fire when he said "regime change" should have been the main reason to oust the dictator, rather than alleged weapons of mass destruction.

If you mean the people who came from a forum that was set up after the Guardian closed their talk boards, the vast majority of them are women not men. I was a member of that other forum for a long time (and the Guardian boards before that) but left for unrelated reasons long before the trans bunfight happened but I know these people well and most of them are definitely women. Off the top of my head I can only think of one man from that board who is here.

I too am GC but will be voting to get the Tories out (I have to vote Lib Dem where I live but would prefer to vote Labour). While I would like to see a robust approach to biological sex as the determinant of what a woman is, I am not prepared to throw those less fortunate than myself under the bus. And the people at the bottom of the heap desperately need a Labour government. While any party would face challenges as the next government attempts to try to repair 14 years of idiocy, I do believe that a Labour government is likely to do better at this than one of any other stripe.

No not that one. I don't think. They have said they don't want it mentioned as its tiny so I'm not naming it or the posters. 2 ticks and I'll confirm

Actually maybe that is where it came from. Without conforming names it's impossible to know, I've seen more than one say they were male

Your article also states;

Mr Howard [said] he was expressing his own view on the issue, and any decision would be for a Conservative Cabinet to decide.
former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said his views were not shared by all Tories. And Margaret Thatcher spoke of her " frustration" at Mr Howard.

Would "regime change" have passed a cabinet vote at the time? Vote in parliament?

May 2005
Lord Goldsmith's confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the legality of invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, revealed for the first time last week, was equivocal about almost everything. It was clear about one point and one point only: "Regime change," insisted the Attorney General, "cannot be the object of military action." Any invasion which had that goal would be unambiguously illegal under international law.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3616571/Regime-change-is-illegal-end-of-debate.html

And Margaret Thatcher spoke of her " frustration" at Mr Howard.

She didn’t get a say. She’d been booted out for over a decade by then. Tories don’t seem particularly bothered by illegality - I give you proroguing Parliament and deportation to Rwanda.

RishisLeavingDo
Labour has said he took the job because barristers may not withhold their services based on a client’s conduct, opinions or beliefs

As an aside, I have just noticed that the barrister acting for the trans [woman] in this case (September 2009) was in fact Keir Starmer's former girlfriend in the 1990s (they bought a house together - split up but remained friends);

Sept 2009 - Phillippa Kaufman, of Doughty Street Chambers, acted for a [trans] convicted killer who was born a man but has had her womanhood recognised by law and her birth certificate amended. The High Court ruled that she be transferred to a woman’s prison.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/lawyer-of-the-week-phillippa-kaufman-wf5q76fwnjs

[Trans] killer [of a man] and attempted rapist [of a woman] wins 'human rights' battle to be moved to a woman's prison.

Lawyer Phillippa Kaufmann said the killer's crimes were all linked to a desperation to become a woman.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211165/Transexual-prisoner-wins-High-Court-battle-moved-womens-jail.html
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/law-reports-106

BIossomtoes
Tories don’t seem particularly bothered by illegality

I thought it was 'different in the old days' and Boris Johnson was to blame?

Did you?

Do you think certain people shouldn't have access to a lawyer?

I love Boris so I'm biased anyway.

There’s no accounting for taste.

I posted mainly because I thought the connection to Keir Starmer was interesting.

Do you think a transgender woman convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape of a woman should be sent to a female prison? I don't.

You love someone with a history of sleeping around, habitual lying, career failure and a criminal record?

Well, each to their own ...

I know - Jeremy Corbyn has been married three times as well.