Heads up - webchat with Jeremy Corbyn Monday 19th Sept @ 2pm.

[JustineMumsnet]

Hello,

We’re pleased to announce a webchat with the leader of the Labour Party (and candidate in the current leadership election) Jeremy Corbyn MP on Monday 19 September at 2pm.

Jeremy has been MP for Islington North since 1983, and before 2015 was best known as a rebellious backbencher and chair of the Stop the War coalition. His leadership of Labour over the past year has inspired enthusiastic support as well as attracting sustained criticism. Among other things, he’s taken a new crowd-sourced approach to Prime Minister’s Questions, opposed military intervention in Syria and proposed the renationalisation of the railways.

His last webchat on Mumsnet (alongside fellow leadership candidate in 2015, Liz Kendall) featured lively discussions about socialism, electability and the provenance of Jeremy’s vests (Holloway Road market, since you ask).

Please do join the chat on Monday at 2, or if you can’t make it, leave a question here in advance. If you know people who you think would like to ask Jeremy a question, do please share the link around on social media too.

(If you’re interested in our webchat with the other Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith, take a look here .)

As always, please do keep in mind our webchat guidelines - one question each, follow-ups if there’s time and above all, keep it civil [taps nose like that geezer Shaw Taylor in Police 5] (Horribly showing my age there).

What's the point with web chats if you are not going to answer questions

We have all heard his retoric on redistribution of wealth, immigration and refugees

Didn't someone refer to him as a Brocialist upthread? A good description, I think.

The point with the "what is a woman" questions is that without a clarifier, his other posts become meaningless. Increasing women in stem, women in the cabinet - what does he mean when he says women?

If he wants to maintain the (TW are women) status quo, at least bloody say so! Maria Miller may have her faults, but at least her aim is clear!

I don't think these web chats are designed to be too heavy going are they? - people are generally only here for an hour so can't get bogged down with one particular issue.
I thought he did really well.

No he didn't. The second question was a good one, he ignored it.

I would understand him running out of time, or avoiding questions that he felt he'd already answered, but to ignore pages of intelligent political discussion and questions to answer a question about fucking biscuits is ridiculous and insulting. Maybe we should all just bake shortbread rather than vote?

His answer to the question was stupid too. He's against sugar on health grounds but is pictured with sugary food like iron bru and likes to make jam. Maybe he changes his mind on policies as much as he does on sugar.

Owen Smith answered 12 questions and Jeremy Corbyn answered 17 questions so an hour really isn't long enough for either of them to get across their whole manifesto on every single issue. It would seem that they both had to choose to answer the questions that affect the most people rather than those that affect only a small number of people. That doesn't mean the minority's questions aren't important just that this 1 hour forum may not be the place to ask those questions. It is also more likely that JC who is known to be more inclusive than OS, is much more likely to support the policy that works out best for the individual rather than what's best for the predators. Also my question to anyone who is upset at not getting answers from JC is: did you ask OS for his opinion on the same thing if so did he answer to your satisfaction? If you didn't ask or he didn't answer then what point are you trying to make? This was supposed to help people decide between two people up for the same job of leader of the Labour Party and not a place to score points against one side. Either attack both or neither. If OS did answer satisfactorily please feel free to tell us what he said that you liked

These web chats are designed so that politicians come on Mumsnet and answer questions from Mumsnetters about their politics.

They are given a heads-up that there will be questions waiting for them already, in advance.

Even if the web chats are only supposed to be light hearted, (and I don't think that is the case), I'm having difficulty identifying the wit and humour.

I agree that the trans question is important and I would love to see a genuine answer to it.

But I don't see how you could really expect JC (or any politician up for election) to answer this frankly and publicly. If he had said "transwomen are not women", a huge controversy would have been stirred up and he would have been vilified by large numbers of his left-leaning supporters. If he'd said "anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman" then equally he would have lost a good deal of support from radical feminists.

I know that, by avoiding the question, he has already lost some support here, but I just don't see that anyone hoping to be elected could give a frank answer to this, as either way would be very controversial and costly in terms of votes.

I don't understand the negativity.

Allow me to help, ThroughTheOtherSide.

JC had a short amount of time to answer questions and his answers were comprehensive and did not dodge the issues.

He had an hour, could see plenty of questions in advance, presumably he has a group of advisers to help him draft replies, and still he just chose the softest "how do you keep your chin up, Jeremy, when the MSM are nasty to you" questions. And the biscuit and books questions. When he did answer real questions the answers were so mealy-mouthed as to be useless.

Just because he didn't answer in sound bites and couldn't answer everything doesn't mean he isn't capable.

He might be capable, but I've seen no evidence of it.

It looks like a few people wanted to score points and were using this forum to their own ends.

I dunno about what "ends" anyone else had, but I was absolutely using this forum for my own ends, which is to have my bloody question on his, and his supporters', attitudes to women answered. Which he didn't.

He also in a 1 hour slot can not be expected to discuss issues that affect a very few people

Women are not "a few people".

He has refused to get involved in negativity, even against the MPs that voted against him.

He's washed his hands of doing anything about the very many unpleasant people that get "involved in negativity" on his behalf.

JC is speaking for many people and which is why he membership has grown so MPs need to listen and get behind him.

What, like he got behind all the leaders that went before him?

Hope that helps.

"he would have lost a good deal of support from radical feminists"

I've not seen him have that support for it to be lost! (and if he did have it, that ship sailed on the decriminalisation post)

Like I said, one comment maintaining the status quo would have been better than being ignored.

"He also in a 1 hour slot can not be expected to discuss issues that affect a very few people, when there are many more people affected by things like housing, poverty, and discrimination of all sorts."

Very few people? 50% of humanity is very few people?

The issue of the definition of a woman affects every woman on the planet.

The issue of how women are seen; whether we are full human beings, or just wanktoys for men, affects every woman on the planet.

Jeremy Corbyn is not a stupid man, he knows this.

He's banking on the fact that most voters are too stupid to know this.

It would seem that they both had to choose to answer the questions that affect the most people rather than those that affect only a small number of people

There were numerous questions about the sex trade, trans issues, Brexit and anti semitism.

All ignored.

As for whether Owen Smith was asked the same questions.... These questions were geared towards JC views, stance and things happening currently under his leadership.

I think, 'Do you believe a penis can be female?' is extremely straightforward.

I think he answered the trans question by not answering it. Labour under him will treat transwomen as women.

I know that, by avoiding the question, he has already lost some support here, but I just don't see that anyone hoping to be elected could give a frank answer to this, as either way would be very controversial and costly in terms of votes.

It wasn't just the transfer questions he ignored.

But hey we know what books he likes and his favourite biscuit.

It's not difficult to find out about JC's general policies using the power of Google.

The point of a web chat is to answer specific questions from individuals.

The prostitution question was asked repeatedly and it is relevant. JC attempted to answer it but either didn't understand it or didn't want to engage with the question.

"If he'd said "anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman" then equally he would have lost a good deal of support from radical feminists"

No, he wouldn't. He would have lost a good deal of support from women. Most women don't believe that anyone who identifies as a woman is a woman, once you actually talk them through the arguments and they realise that someone like Peter Sutcliffe can just say he's a woman and be expected to be accepted as one. Most women are not so bloody stupid that they believe the gaslighting that mainstream media is perpetrating on this issue. It's not some niche little radical feminist thing, it's every woman who ever thinks about it who isn't more interested in being right-on, than being honest and having some bloody self-respect.

"I think he answered the trans question by not answering it"

I think the same is probably true for other questions that were asked a few times and can't possibly have been missed.

Prostitution is a big issue for many feminists. So yes, I did want to know if she still supported decriminalisation of pimps and punters. Web chats are not designed as - come on answer questions that you think the general public want the answer to, even if this is not what mums netters are most concerned about.
He was here to answer questions from mums netters, that is obvious. If you are not prepared to do that, don't come on.

"Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, said: “I send my good wishes to all those campaigning for the rights and equality of transgender people on Transgender Remembrance Day. "

This was reported in the Pink News and is the only thing I can find where Corbyn comments on transgender issues.

Anyway I now suspect that Corbyn thinks:

• decriminalising pimps and punters is a good idea
• transwomen are women
• women on mumsnet are not very bright or politically aware so you can get away with doing a shit job on a web chat.
• and that anti Semitism is an issue of little concern to him.

Well, that was a pretty depressing read. My impression from a reading of the entire thread in one sitting is that Jeremy Corbyn gave a number of thoughtful and honest replies - I can't see that he chose to answer only the jovial questions, by any stretch of the imagination - but now he's being roundly abused by huge numbers of people who are cross because he didn't answer their question, or that he didn't subjugate himself to their agenda.

A majority of the 'questions' asked weren't questions at all, they were statements of what the poster believes or wanted to lecture about. Who wants to read that?? There are countless other threads for mumsnet members to state their opinions - this was an invitation for a guest to answer questions about what he thinks, not to be yelled at from members' soapboxes.

What a shameful hour.

Thing is, the trans issue is too controversial for most politicians. Have any actually come out & said, ' 'you can't possibly be a woman if you have a penis?'

We asked one question a very lot. It's a big deal and he knows it's a big deal. He didn't answer it (not directly anyway). People are allowed to express disdain for that.

He didn't answer my question, I don't really care too much about that - I've done mn web chats before and I'm a big girl.

I do care that he ignored a lot of other women who were asking questions that I agree are bloody important.