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).

Or, have I missed something?

Yes, Feminism 101.

I want the right to have an abortion if I choose, AND not to be traffiked and pimped.

How is that in any way conflicted?

I'm sure jake would have loved a totally legit Saturday job getting DPed by dirty men :)

Jake I think you may also have missed the memo that says women do not have to seek your approval of their political positions or reduce them to soundbites so you can understand the obvious differences between abortion and prostitution.

Oh and, when will self-identified women start demanding the right to change the word abortion to something a bit more inclusive? Or just, maybe, you know, decide to try to ban it.

AskBasil, you say

No, he wouldn't [have lost support from radical feminists]. 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... 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 would like to believe this, but I don't know if I do. Plenty of liberal feminists I know support the idea that transwomen (esp post-surgery) are women. And many other women I know just don't care about the issue/haven't come across the issue at all.

So I don't think there would have been some huge female groundswell of support for JC if he'd said "penises are exclusively male" or something like that. I DO think that there would have been a huge outcry, though, from trans-activist supporters and much of the left wing, and his chances of ever being elected would have been wiped out.

So, in short, I really don't see what he could have done on this one.

(I'm not trying to defend JC, by the way, and I was very disappointed in his response re. prostitution).

I thought that JC did well in the time allotted and was clear and concise in his answers to a variety of different questions.

Tbf it is hardly possible for him to fully and carefully answer questions on sensitive hot potatoes such as transgender issues and alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour party in a webchat format such as this. Which is probably why they were avoided.

I think Ginger's suggestion is a helpful one... Why don't we have a 24 or 48 hour window for MNers posting questions and MNHQ compiling those that are most frequently asked and then a list of these is sent to the webchat candidate for perusal and to begin formulating their replies. These replies could then be copied in at the outset which would allow the candidate the opportunity to answer the questions that are then asked as a result of their initial replies.

The main problem with webchat in the current format is the lack of depth/sense of skimming over the important stuff which I feel is a symptom both of lack of time and also the candidate being potentially overly cautious/wary and not wanting to spontaneously/impulsively respond to a question about a sensitive topic in a way which they might later regret [and might be pounced upon by the media as an indication of their wrong thinking or wrong doing].

Unfortunately however the cautious/superficial approach leaves posters feeling ignored, insulted and frustrated.

He answered the Brexit question. He also answered the questions about prostitution and he clarified his views on abuse of any kind including women. The anti Semitism issue has been answered many times on TV and online and he has been clear on that too. In fact the Jewish community has backed him on this issue. A quick search on Google will show anyone who is not sure. There have been numerous episodes of online trolls asking these questions in order to try and slur him with 'guilty by association.' The MSM has been found to be negatively skewed against JC by researchers at the LSE so we can only ask why this is and how can we combat or at least balance the negativity with some positive points. If the 1% are trying to get rid of him he must be doing something right. The fact that OS had 89 questions after his forum and nearly 800 for JC suggests that JC is stirring the pot and getting through to the electorate so it is no surprise that there will be people trying to bring him down. Once again I would like to know how OS (or indeed Theresa May) would answer these questions? And why would we focus on them here if we don't know that the other side are offering a better alternative anyway? What is the point of attacking one side? If we want change then we need to go with the person most likely to support the 99% and not the status quo.

jakepepper, I am not sure you are here in good faith (in fact, I'd put money on you not being here in good faith), but in case any lurkers are and want this question answered:

There are some women who do choose prostitution. There are a lot more who are either driven into it by economic desperation and/or trafficked with threats of violence. Before we even get onto the question of the wider impact on women as a whole, it seems that a key question for anyone with an ounce of compassion would be "how do we balance the rights of the few who want to do this against the rights of the many who are forced into it?" Or more bluntly, what proportion of Belle-du-jour top-end escorts who like their lifestyle justifies the grinding horror of the lifestyle for the far more frequent prostitute on the street or in a back street massage parlour. I would argue protection of the majority outweighs the needs of the minority of Belle du jours.

Then there's the knock-on effect on women as a whole. PUnters are overwhelmingly male, prostitutes mostly female, and among male prostitutes, still the majority cater to gay male clients (or men who think of themselves as heterosexual), not women. It is part of an edifice that props up the idea of women as the sex class, as sexually available, as nothing more than orifices to be fucked rather than human beings.

Finally, we can look at the actual practical consequences, because two countries have very kindly supplied us with a compare and contrast experiment. Sweden has criminalised the buying of sex (not the sale - no-one, repeat NO-ONE is suggesting criminalising prostitutes here), and rates of trafficking and prostitution have dropped. Germany has legalised pretty much everything. The result: mega brothels where "independent contractors" (so still none of the health insurance, sick pay, employment protection legalisation was supposed to bring) have to service 4 clients before they've even paid the rent on the room for the night. Caravans next to rest areas on motorways where prostitutes service truckers for 10 to 20 euros a time. Streetwalkers (because they haven't gone away - legalise prostitution and more men expect sex for pay for less money, hardly an economic surprise if you know anything about the way capitalism works) now do blow jobs for the price of a Big Mac. And trafficking hasn't gone down, it's gone up.

Which society do I want to live in? Without a doubt, Sweden.

But the website questions - those that were avoided - were up in the three days prior to the web chat and MNHQ confirmed they tell the guests this.

Good idea about MN gathering the most popular questions asked prior to the live hour and putting these to the guest. This is what happens with the audience for 'Question Time'. You are asked prior to the show to write two questions on a piece of paper. These are gathered up and the most popular topics asked of the panel.

While not particularly impressed with the performance as a whole, I tend to agree with previous posters who suggest he may have answered the trans question by not answering it. Would've been pretty easy for him to do a trans women are women, Labour have always been ahead on LGBT issues, we fight bigotry right side of history yada yada style response.

Am guessing my question is viewed as soap boxing by some.

Tbo I don't see anything wrong with wanting to know what labour under Corbyn would do for someone not a member of the Labour Party and not one of the masses who currently don't vote (but apparently now will be in droves).

There are quite a lot of us. I currently feel that we are looked on with distaste, useful as a source of tax funds but nothing further.

I would also in future prefer questions to be grouped and presented in advance. In the hope that the person 'chatting' can be a little prepared with answers to the main questions, leaving time for chat. Rather than appearing to start reading questions at the start of the chat.

To MostlyHet I would first say that curiosity led me to post a comment - nothing else. I read the reports of JC's Q&A with Mumsnet and was struck immediately by the contradiction implicit in the hostility he faced over this particular question. Whether you believe it or not, I did this in good faith and simply wanted to open a discussion on the matter and to clarify matters from a moral viewpoint.

If MostlyHet and others read my post again it can be seen that I emphasise that I am only talking about women who CHOOSE to sell their bodies for sex. (The same would also apply to men who CHOOSE as well.

Some of those who commented on my post seem to have misread what I said – and others have commented in a hostile manner.

I said quite clearly, “I am not talking here about women who are forced in any way to sell their bodies but about those who make a choice to sell their bodies instead of doing other work to earn an income”.

I am simply asking about the way some people seem to be able to hold two completely opposing views at the same time – and yet somehow justify their stance.

As I said, “In the arguments put forward in favour of abortion, (on Mumsnet and elsewhere) it is often said that women have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies”.

I counterposed this with, “Well, if women truly have a moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies, then surely if they choose to sell their bodies for sex then they are simply asserting that moral right”.

And, in reply to APlaceOnThe Couch, I would state clearly that I totally accept that women do not have to seek my approval of their political positions.

I am simply puzzled that some of the mums on here seem to be able to hold two opposing vies on womens' moral right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Or have I simply touched a raw nerve. Is it that some of the women on Mumsnet want to force their own moral viewpoint on women who choose to become prostitutes. And in so doing, they reveal the contradictions in their own minds. Psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance”.

"I think the thing with questions about prostetution is that people have different views, but the people asking the questions are only willing to accept one view.

I'm not suprised he didn't want to get into a discussion about it."

You see, this is where I think you're completely wrong. Jeremy is supposed to be bringing a new style of principled politics, one which involves standing up for what you believe in, not having endless focus groups to tailor your soundbites to get the maximum number of votes.

He also said in his answer to the prostitution question that one thing both sides could agree on was that it was about harm reduction (actually, that's not true of organisations which are run by the pimp lobby, who are interested in maximising profits, but it is true of the liberals who have bought their line). So if harm reduction is his game, he should and ought to have a view about which approach minimises harm: the German model or the Swedish model. And he ought to be able to defend that view - not for the entrenched like me, but for the floating voters.

To refuse to persuade of the moral and political superiority of your view (in fact on this issue to refuse even to state what your view is) when your whole politics is supposedly built around honest, issue driven matters of principle rather than Blairite focus groups to appeal to middle England and screw your principles - that for me is a massive, massive failure.

He hasn't done what it says on the tin!

No, you haven't touched a raw nerve, jakepepper, at all.

A quick search on Google will show anyone who is not sure.

Oh right so let's not ask any questions (apart from ones Corbyn supporters want) just Google it instead.

You also think that all the Jewish community is behind Corbyn? Really?

There seems to be a few posters on here that these are the first posts they have made...

Welcome to mumsnet.

I think the thing with questions about prostetution is that people have different views, but the people asking the questions are only willing to accept one view.

I'm not suprised he didn't want to get into a discussion about it.

Whether or not people have already made up their mind about the answer, (and their opinion may have been formed through education, experience and careful thought), if somebody is asking people to vote for them as prime minister, part of the job is answering questions - and not just the easy ones.

Do you think you've just popped on here and figured out this is all just cognitive dissonance by some mums? Or alternatively, you're not capable of analysing this on your own and you've had to ask for it to be spelled out to you. MostlyHet gave you a generous response which you seem not to understand. I suggest you find some reading sources on your own to deal with your puzzlement.

"The antisemitism issue has been answered many times on TV and online ... In fact the Jewish community has backed him on this issue"
Has it? Because I must have missed that. Last I saw he was being roundly criticised by the former and current chief rabbis for his speech when the report was issued, and most think that the report did nothing and was a sticking plaster for a gaping wound. And since when has the Jewish community ever agreed in anything? His standard response every time this has come up has been that the labour party doesn't tolerate "racism".

I honestly think he doesn't see what the issue is. It's like he doesn't believe that he can be biased because he's a right on socialist. I see this a lot in the left now. Politically I'm totally left liberal but I've totally lost faith in the movement (and the Labour Party) because of this. I even voted Tory in the last election (which I previously said I'd only do over my dead body) as a protest vote because this is such a problem, that they refuse to deal with.

Bloody hell, the Corbyn supporters aren't doing him any favours on here.

In fact the Jewish community has backed him on this issue.

Are you absolutely sure about that, ThroughTheOtherSide?

I think a ‘like’ button would have been quite useful on this thread to flag up which questions people, including those who are lurking but not posting, are particularly interested in having answered.

Is it that some of the women on Mumsnet want to force their own moral viewpoint on women who choose to become prostitutes.

I don't want to force anything on prostitutes. I don't think prostitutes should be criminalised, and I think a great many more resources should help those who were forced into it (ie most of them) who want to get out.

I absolutely do want to force my moral viewpoint on the abusive men who think women's bodies are nothing but meat for them to use. My moral viewpoint is that men who treat women as disposable fuckpuppets should have their balls nailed to a wall be criminalised for their violent behaviour. The question is, jakepepper, why on earth you would think this is a bad thing?