C4 now labour leadship hustings question on trans pledge

[stumbledin]

Not a very strong question. Just more is this going to divide us.

Lisa Nandy again going on young consituency.

Can watch on C4+1

Agreed, a shit question, although Krishnan Guru-Murthy tried to make it into a more useful one with his followups.

Both LM & RLB seem to be trying to tone down, but wont address naming organisation as hate groups.

Speak volumes about these 2 candidates that they obviously hadn't bothered to think through what they were signing and were more interesed in scoring points with the people they hope will vote for them to be LP Leader.

Kier Starmer although hasn't signed is basically saying he agrees with their stand on TWAW etc..

But Labour party unity important. ie not taking the opportunity to say what they had signed was totally untrue.

I popped some info on the Nandy thread - he did at least make it very clear that we are talking about intact males (I think the wording was "To be clear here we are talking about people with male genitalia")

Agree - rubbish question, and nothing but fudge from all 3 candidates, but Krishnan's questions were good. Also a good comment from a woman in the audience about the importance of single sex spaces for women

Oh dear, both women rowed back on the shit flung at WPUK and LGB Alliance. That's going to go down very badly with the accusers. I think they were so vague about denouncing and expelling they have now actually become transphobic themselves. Keir shat his pants and said we are all mates..

I do think he has to bite his tongue at the moment.
From what I can gather he hates Momentum and they hate him.
If / when he becomes leader we'll find out what he really thinks

It was a bit of a "we're all trying to avoid saying anything except we need to talk" wasn't it.

If anyone wasn't clear, Lisa's from Wigan!

Lots of backtracking and diversion there. But Krishnan got 'male genitalia" into his clarification and they picked a woman to comment who seemed to have a clue.

As usual all about trans rights, not a word about women's rights. Mandy's little friend mentioned again, hope they have their permission. The fragrant Krishnan pushed them on it though. Sounds like he's getting it... so maybe Channel 4 news will finally start talking about this.

'Keir shat his pants and said we are all mates..'

Yes, he was so patronising. Let's all be friends and be nice to each other

They certainly did row back on the near slanderous comments of a few days ago. Its obvious they dont really have a clue about this issue and are just trying for woke points. Pathetic stuff

RL-B has "Clarified her stance on women only spaces and trans rights."

Clear as mud as far as I can see but here's the article: www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour-leadership-race/2020/02/rebecca-long-bailey-clarifies-stance-women-only-spaces-and

They're crapping themselves because it went down so badly, but somehow it's been made worse by the panicked denials, rowing back and claims they didn't know/agree with what, only a few days ago, they explicitly agreed to and defended. No integrity, no honesty, no intelligence, no good.

Of course the general public won't understand the nuances - we all know how inconsistent and muddled the issues are. The raw fact that they all want rapists and paedophiles in women's prisons is such a clear statement.
No wonder they, the EHRC & Stonewall are desperate for no case law. This mess is the only way that they can continue with the lies and gaslighting of women and the population generally and why it takes so long for reality to be seen.

I think the questions asked by krishnan might have made it a bit clearer to people who didn't get it. The responses were woeful

Several threads on this now..here is my precis:

Taking an overview, it does show how far we've been able to move the debate into the spotlight - from a position of near total obscurity just a matter of months ago.......

Yes, there was a question on 'trans rights'. All three candidats became sweaty and uncomfortable; squirming and avoiding direct questions. Lisa Nandy tried to shift her response on to areas with which she is more comfortable ( domestic violence/refuges/asylum seekers) - which she feels might take away some of the heat she clearly feels.

Kier Starmer was avoidant and non responsive; in fact actively blocked questions and refused to answer why he did not sign the 'pledge'. Krishnan Guru murthy did his best not to let them off the hook...but they wriggled free anyway.

Can't even remember what Long Bailey said: mechanical and lacking in anything worth listening to was my impression. She's hopeless as leadership material.

Gury murthy then asked a couple of audience members for their view. A fairly yong black woman said she thought that safe spaces for women were important, and a hijab wearing muslim woman wanted to know why Kier Starmer did not sign the pledge that the other two had done......no response......refusal to answer...and tried to make it look like he was just being comradely in his refusal.

It is clear that none of the candidates feel secure in what they are saying; and do not have a full grasp of the issues. And indeed, the audience seemed perplexed too: about what a 'trans woman' actually was or implied. Rebecca Long Bailey is the most mechanical and on-message.

It was good that the two randomly chosen audience members did not spout trans ideology or right on messages. Hopefully gave the candidates an insight into what normal, everyday people really feel....

There's no hope for Labour for many years to come...and maybe that is a good thing.

It is the thorn that none is willing to grasp...for fear of being on the 'wrong side of history'.

They each really need to do some consultation with 'A woman's Place U.K'. Nandy trying to suggest that " it isn't about organisations, but about individuals".........Yes, Lisa, the most fervently abusive individuals are the ones banging on windows, and shouting abuse at people as they attempt to make their way to legitimate meetings.

Funny, I watched the RLB Marr interview and I'm sure she said no male born trans person would be excluded from single sex spaces.

The rowing back is craven and useless, but does give me hope in a way; it must be perceived as a massive vote loser if she's not doubling down.

The rowing back is craven and useless, but does give me hope in a way; it must be perceived as a massive vote loser if she's not doubling down

Yes, they are all playing catch-up....being led by the constituents for a change.....I reckon they need another couple of years at least before they begin to understand the full implications.

It really sounded to me like they had pre-discussed this topic and agreed to just parrot the "be nice" line en-masse. There was a bit of it elsewhere but not to this extent.

I was also pleased that the two female audience members didn't come across as pro (especially the first who was clearly opposed, second harder to judge where her question was coming from) and that they weren't, how to put it, the stereotypical angry white middle aged feminist that the TRAs are trying to portray all "TERFs" as being.

It amazes me that in 2020 three politicians can stand in front of the nation and not a single one chose to defend women’s rights because it’s seen as a vote loser. What a depressing state to be in.

It's great that some of them are gently reverse ferreting but the problem is, why would anyone trust them now? They've already demonstrated that they don't understand the issues, and don't think understanding them is important, they were just doing whatever the shoutiest people perceived as important told them to. Plus they've proven that in general they don't see women's rights as important, and will happily give them away as a bargaining chip if it gets them more power within the party. Plus they seem to be blindsided by the angry response, which shows that even within their own party membership they have no idea what most people actually think about this issue, which is inexcusable given that a. it was going to come up anyway and b. all but one of them ensured it was something they'd be asked about by signing that stupid pledge.

Starmer comes off as slightly less thick than the others but I wouldn't trust any of these people to run me a bath.

I'm not even sure it was a reverse ferret, more of a general STFU.

Starmer came off as smarmy, RLB as thick and Nandy as weak.

Their inability to answer who the question about their favourite labour leader was hilarious and said so much about all of them. That should have been an easy question but the party is such a mess that any answer would alienate some faction or other.

That they keep saying "Let's keep the debate civil"...annoys me. There has been no debate, so far - let alone for a civil one...which is what everyone here, for starters , would like. so far it has been no-platforming and ejection from theLabour party for attempting to have a debate in the first instance. A proper debate. the sort of debate that we are told means that ( as RLB keeps insinuating) "denying trans people exist" is nor on the table.

Who the hell is "denying trans people exist"? What is being debated is is exactly what this transgender ideology is all about. Jeez!

They really do think this issue is just going to go away, don't they? The fuss will die down, they'll figure out a way to put all the dissenting women in scolds bridles, and they can just carry on spouting whatever some advisor tells them to.

So many SPAGS, sorry ( typing in haste)...I want an edit function.

I picked up on that too, claiming that WPUK will have members who deny transpeople's right to exist (paraphrasing, may have picked up wrong as they were waffling so much)