How John McDonnell wooed Mumsnet - James Kirkup

[womensvoicesmatter]

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that he tackled the women's rights / self ID questions, I thought he'd avoid them!

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/how-john-mcdonnell-wooed-mumsnet/

Labour come across as disingenuous at best, over the Brexit and Self Id issues. McDonnall more or less said on the chat he'd rather screw over the country on Brexit, and gave platitudes over self id to keep the women sweet. There goes my vote. The Party comes across as a We'll do it tomorrow fucking omnishambles.

I'm with you McWilde this is pretty much my interpretation of Labour policy regardless of who is 'leading' the party. There are groups with far too much power within the Labour Party structure for me to take any shushing and head patting of Mumsnetters at face value.

Ereshkigal

Yes, other journalists suggest he was limp on the issue. JK, in contrast, knows how far from the existing position this is. I wonder what the Labour Party student activists, who so happily no-platformed WPUK, feel. Or the woke policy experts in organisations like the Gymnastics Association who have driven carts and horses through existing child protection policies without consulting coaches and members.

Absolutely bowl as far as I’m aware a vote doesn’t have a sex or a gender identity or anything other than an adult saying yes to a candidate or party. Why would you ignore millions of voters.

I’ve read some Jewish people feel that because they are such a small minority group that labour don’t really have to worry about losing their votes because it doesn’t make a difference. Well one fuck that because it should and two, women are a majority group and labour should be worried about losing support of over half the population and three the trans population is a smaller group than Jewish people but that minority is carefully considered so what’s all that about if it’s all a numbers game?

I’m so embarrassed because labour and socialism are what I used to believe in. Throwing away all the support of women, the working class and certain minority groups in order to pander to middle class woke types who will switch to conservative once they become fully entrenched in the establishment.

We don't want concessions now: we want our rights back

Absolutely

JK, in contrast, knows how far from the existing position this is

I agree with this. The current position and orthodoxy can be read by watching how the Beeb treats it, and at the moment that is still no debate/TWAW. McDonnell has implied that it can be talked about, so now everyone will be checking behind the scenes to see if he meant it. They will all be reassured privately that he didn't mean it, and all will go on as before. There will be no debate, and extreme transactivists will be given the louder voice.

John McDonnell doesn't care about women on this issue one scrap, not at all, and nor does he care about trans identified people, one bit. He realised that it could have an impact on his wider project, and is vote counting. He's just appeasing both sides and hoping to keep that up until an election/leadership challenge.

If you suddenly see more GC balanced items on the BBC that will be a sign that they've been given the go ahead from on high to push back against Trans Media Watch. But they won't be, and we won't.

Charlie, Yes.

I can't imagine for a moment that JMcD will want to set off another full scale internal Labour fight at a point when the Tories might be forced to hold a crisis Brexit election. Lots of far more important things to do, like gaining control of their shortlists, and ensuring that Tom Watson is shuffled sideways.

So a couple of placatory words, with the hope that this is enough to staunch the flow of women from the party.

I think you are right. I don't think he has any interest in this issue. He has his own agenda.

All the same, the signalling that debate is needed is useful.

The current position and orthodoxy can be read by watching how the Beeb treats it

This is so true. Right wing voters think the BBC has a left wing bias. Left wing voters think the BBC has a right wing bias. But the truth is that it represents establishment consensus.

Yes I agree it's useful. Conversations aren't had about this 'behind the scenes' on anything except TWAW terms, and that includes at the Equalities Office. TWAW is the presumption behind every conversation, never questioned. Like, some people will disagree but it will be utterly taboo to vocalise this. For a brief moment, a few people will have to have conversations about whether or not the tone is changing and public questioning and debate will be allowed. So at least for a tiny window, wider chat is permitted behind the scenes and some people will be allowed to express the view and get points acriss in favour of debate.

I don't think think anything will change right now, but every long walk starts with one step forward.

Fair play to Vine, she is sticking her neck out and I admire that.
I am watching and waiting to see who will come out first- I want to see who is going to own up to their gender critical perspective first.

I have had a small dalliance with thinking about supporting the women’s equality party but frankly if a political party of women can allow themselves to sucked into the TRA narrative then that’s just rediculous. What other absolute madness would they go along with to get support? Being a women’s party not in favour of women- get a grip-It entails going against instinct.
I will also not forget the lack of support Bowlofbabekfish.
I won’t trust Labour ever again and won’t vote for them unless they take action.
They need to reinstate women only shortlist’s containing actual biological women only. Stop the pretence. We all see through it.
When it come to the next election I will be voting for the gender critical party- whoever that is. ( save UKIP- I’m not mental.)

Oddly JMcD acknowledging the need for debate, may embolden the Tories and right of centre media. Hitherto, though their natural instincts have been to question the "woke", getting it so very wrong on gay issues has left them nervous on this.

An election platform that says essentially "You may not like us much but look at the alternative" will have some traction, so this becomes a useful issue. A reverse. Previously TM did not seem to want to open up a gap between them and the Labour position. Now JMcD seems to want to narrow the gap between Labour and an emerging Tory poisition. No doubt his analysts can see a credibility collapse in the LibDems and Greens, which they want to avoid.

James, I'm going to break with my usual tradition here (because normally I love your stuff), but I think this was a bit on the weak side

I think he was way off in his interpretation. Most here are not impressed and can see right through the empty promises and "we will talk to both sides" flannel.

Also I would say that signalling that you want debate is purely a conscious effort to quiet the arguement. It’s just reflective listening, we’re all supposed to think John understands.
I know I sound bitter. It’s because I’m bitter.

John understands our concerns, and he knows damn well that TW are not W. He just doesn't care.

We don't need to convince him or anyone that TW are not W. They all know. We only need to show that it is to their personal and political disbenefit to base policy on the belief that they are.

As Charlie says, whether it be Brexit or the Trans debate, McDonnell and Labour just look to appease rather than take a side themselves. (Law and Order is a little different - they've been able to blame London's soaring murder rate on austerity and reduced police numbers, which gets them out of awkward discussions of bringing back stop and search etc).

This is in keeping with how the Hard Left operate historically - hammer the government for never doing enough while give as little detail as possible about your own alternative plans.

Also, I think that both McDonnell and Corbyn see purging the party as a higher priority than actually winning a GE.

My understanding was that Brexit suits the Labour left. First its causing huge harm to the Tories, increasing Labour's chances of being elected. It then allows them to implement policies such as re-nationalisation which otherwise would be contrained by EU Single Market directives.

Politics at the moment seems to be both parties sitting back and hoping the other self destructs first. Not much debate on policies.

NMS

I believe you're right on the nationalisation point, hence various whipped votes showing that Corbyn and McDonnell want out. Still, they can't afford to see say so to keep the North and Midlands as it would go down badly in London and would be a gift to the SNP in Scotland.

It reminds me on the Leaders debates in the run-up to the 2010 election. The key issue was the cuts that would have to be made following the Crash but, as no politician wanted to talk about them, the debates were reduced to the level of 'I agree with Nick.

My understanding was that Brexit suits the Labour left

I think both Corbyn and McDonnell are at best ambivalent about global trade, and actually quite anti. They see EU membership as linked to that, so Brexit suits their beliefs too.

I think in economic terms they're closer to Trump than they'd like to broadcast

Quick question- just out of interest does anybody on here know how many Labour members have been lost since say the last election and how many are women?

They lost me. I can't recall exactly when. I didn't vote Labour at the last election but that was because I voted Lib Dem to defeat the SNP candidate.

I resigned my Labour membership and I think it might have been after the second Corbyn win. My reasons are not related to self ID but entirely due to the takeover by Momentum.

Would just be interesting to know if there is a larger loss of female members for any reason at all.

Vine does the usual thing of "I'm not saying that some of these cases are not genuine".

But if we are going to win in the end we need to be moving this conversation to say that NO child is transgender. They may have 'dysphoria'. But it is not possible to be transgender when transgender means 'born in the wrong body'

I also remain unwooed. I thought he answered the questions, whilst actually avoiding the actual questions. BUT, its good that he didn't avoid it totally, like others would have.

But if we are going to win in the end we need to be moving this conversation to say that NO child is transgender. They may have 'dysphoria'. But it is not possible to be transgender when transgender means 'born in the wrong body'

Thinking that you are born in the wrong body is a delusion. It is a mental health issue and should be treated as such. Agreeing with someone that they actually are born in the wrong body is colluding with a delusion. It's like agreeing with a skinny anorexic that they are really fat.

These children need to be given psychiatric help to help them to accept their bodies the way they are. Why is a lifetime of medication and brutal surgery seen as preferable to acceptance of the body they were born with?

That webchat sounded like 0% integrity, 100% "We'll see which way the wind blows" to me. Although he may have been under orders.

Yes I agree on the wind blows thing, and if it wasn't for mumsnetters and Janice Turner the wind would be blowing one way only. There was no one talking about it two years ago and now there is. Who kept that flame burning? Mumsnetters. Now look. There probably wouldn't have been a consultation at all if it wasn't for feminists, and there definitely wouldn't have been this lying promise not to change the Equalities Act.