Sheffield Central Labour Candidate - Abtisam Mohamed vs Eddie Izzard

[fromorbit]

If you are based in Sheffield please lend your support to Abtisam Mohamed a strong local woman candidate, a solicitor of Yemeni descent and longstanding Labour Councillor who has done valuable local work for the community including on nurseries. Sheffield Central is a safe Labour seat so whoever is selected is going to Parliament. Eddie Izzard has also launched a campaign but besides being a celebrity, has more glitz than steel, hasn't lived in Sheffield since being a student, plus as we all know is unclear about who they are.

Mohamed has an inspiring story, worked her way up to get a great career going and is focused on getting practical stuff done. She will make a great MP.

Abtisam Mohamed interview
www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/sheffield-councillor-launches-her-bid-to-become-a-city-mp-3871921

Abtisam Mohamed Campaign page including a great video lots on her local concerns for the city:
abtisammohamed.com/

In contrast Izzard's campaign, getting loads of press coverage, is thin on detail:
www.eddieizzard.uk/

The local paper talked to people who questioned Izzard's chance of winning a few months back:

"In contrast, Jane Armstrong questioned her claim to run in the city.

She wrote: “I had heard this for a while and if she is fancying Central I know a lot of Labour members in that area who are really hostile to having her as a candidate. Not because she isn't nice person, but because people do not like celebrities being parachuted into wards above local candidates."
www.thestar.co.uk/news/politics/eddie-izzard-sheffield-readers-share-their-thoughts-on-comedians-bid-to-be-city-centrals-next-mp-3821984?itm_source=parsely-api

Apparently several other councillors may be standing as well so it should be an interesting contest.

I am not sure when the cut off point if you join Labour locally you will get to vote on who the candidate is. The actual contest has not yet begun yet but if I were local I would be signing up.

I saw a bunch of tweets on her page demanding she stand up for women's rights openly etc. Of course we have a right to ask that, BUT we also have to recognise the tortuous difficulty there is in escaping groupthink. It can take years, it can take a moment.
Oh come on. I always read your posts, fromorbit and I admire your commitment to staying in the party, even though I don't share it. But as, far as I'm concerned, if you (general you) won't or don't feel you can 'stand up for women's rights openly', then don't stand for public office.

But being openly seen as pro-woman is synonymous to many as being anti trans.

That's a high risk strategy when standing for public office against a Trans candidate.

Isn't it better to come across as moderate on this and to get into public office than risk being hounded on twitter called a bigot and then the electorate decide they can't vote for a bigot not fully understanding the issues.

That would really play into the hands of Izzard campaign.

Isn't it better to come across as moderate on this and to get into public office than risk being hounded on twitter called a bigot and then the electorate decide they can't vote for a bigot not fully understanding the issues.
Before I answer your question, I think we need a definition of 'moderate'.
I'll try first. How about:
The belief that biological sex is real cannot be changed.
Advocating for single sex spaces.
Preserving the Gender Recognition Act and Equality Act in their current form.

All pretty moderate from where I'm sitting. I know many posters on here would disagree strongly with the third point but right now, I'd vote for a centre/left party that supported that view.

Now your turn.

Thanks for the link.

The belief that biological sex is real cannot be changed.
Advocating for single sex spaces.
Preserving the Gender Recognition Act and Equality Act in their current form.

What has any of that got to do with a tweet about transgender day of remembrance?

Has she said that she is going into the the position to remove women's spaces and believes that biological sex is not real?

We know Izzard's position on this.

I'm afraid Starmer's long since burned that bridge.

He's come on here - twice - making vague noises about trying to have some kind of moderate views that mean he isn't actually one of the rabid nutjobs who hate women. He was the one candidate in the Labour Party leadership who stayed coy and wouldn't state any views while the other four - all women - had the integrity to at least be honest about what they stood behind.

And then he's illustrated that he was merely making don't frighten the horses noises in order to get into power and do exactly what he wanted. It's a known Labour tactic, Blair excelled at it.

Women have been repeatedly, endlessly, lied to, manipulated, deceived and fudged at by a lot of seriously lousy politicians who are in bed with the TQ+ male supremacy. It's been achieved by repeatedly leaning on women's willingness to be patient, generous, considerate, trusting - there is a point beyond which the only value this shows is being a gullible doormat. It is not respected, it is merely seen as evidence that women are stupid and a pushover and it's something to take happy advantage of.

Absolutely nothing would gain my vote now but frank, honest commitment to female sex based rights and equalities, with a history of proved action behind the words.

Yes Nilhaus I know but what we are talking about here is a race between two labour candidates.

My point is that complaining about Abtisam's tweet about the transgender day of remembrance to the point of saying it makes her an unsuitable candidate for her views on trans rights is going to favour Izzard who will absolutely remove women's spaces.

I don't know what her views are on women's spaces etc. and I don't live in Sheffield but I would assume that women's chances sit better with a woman than with someone who is gender fluid who has made their views on women's spaces crystal clear.

Sorry nilsmousehammer I don't know where I got nilshaus from!

What has any of that got to do with a tweet about transgender day of remembrance?
I was referring to this comment that you made (apologies for repetition):
Isn't it better to come across as moderate on this and to get into public office than risk being hounded on twitter called a bigot and then the electorate decide they can't vote for a bigot not fully understanding the issues.

I take the point that you were referring to a specific tweet so, if you don't want to widen it out into a broader discussion about what is meant by 'come across as moderate', then fair enough but maybe just say so.

I was talking about the tweet in the context of a race between two labour candidates.

You said:

But as, far as I'm concerned, if you (general you) won't or don't feel you can 'stand up for women's rights openly', then don't stand for public office.

I don't agree with this because of the wider context of the Labour Party under the leadership of Starmer. Are you suggesting that if a woman is not the equivalent of Rosie Duffield they shouldn't bother to even stand and just let the likes of Izzard get on with it because that is how it reads to me.

The wider point about what constitutes moderate views on women's rights I agree with.

I think that that tweet is fairly moderate within the context of the political race she is in, in the area they are in, against a trans identifying candidate. Unless there are other things I am not aware of I would not read that tweet as being anti woman.

I dont read anything negative into the tweet about increased hate crime, given the context that she is operating in. I mean, I don't disagree with the tweet. It's terrible that crimes are committed against people because they're trans. Yes the context is that a lefty politician has to make a statement about that on the day of rememberence. It tells us nothing about her position on female only services etc. because hate crime and female spaces are quite different topics, and by making it nearly compulsory to make such statements they have actually taken away any power it might have. She should be judged on other more meaningful things in comparison to other candidates eg her past work.

Are you suggesting that if a woman is not the equivalent of Rosie Duffield they shouldn't bother to even stand and just let the likes of Izzard get on with it because that is how it reads to me.
I'm not quite there yet but I'm afraid I'm certainly asking myself that, yes. Because it sounds as if whoever wins contest this is likely to end up in parliament where they might well be voting on self ID legislation in the near future. If a candidate isn't prepared to put their head over the parapet now - and to be fair, I don't know much about Abtisam Mohamed and whether she is or not - then yes I'm beginning to ask myself why should Sheffield women who fear for their rights lend their support?

I really hope you can persuade me otherwise because I'm not just thinking about this contest in this constituency, I'm thinking ahead to where I will place my vote at the next general election and quite honestly it is hanging by a thread.

So you don't think there can be a least worst case scenario in a political context?

I find that baffling.

I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I'd rather have someone who might have sympathy for the position of women rather than someone who is demonstrating the opposite in the most obvious way.

The whole labour party is doomed under Starmer. That is not Abtisam's fault. She is doing good work for local constituents. The other candidate has no interest, that I can see, in any issues that might interest the women of Sheffield.

As for the general election that is an issue for Starmer not an issue for a woman in Sheffield who is the best Labour candidate for the local people.

So you don't think there can be a least worst case scenario in a political context?
I guess I'd like to know more about what this least worst scenario will mean for women's rights? Because I keep hearing about all this sensitive work that's going on behind closed doors, and how any kind of robust challenge or even a misjudged tweet risks undoing it all.

But I get the impression you want to keep the focus on Sheffield Central which is fair enough so maybe I should save it for another thread.

Yes I'm focusing on the local issue. Where I'd prefer a Muslim woman who has knowledge and experience of local issues over Izzard who is riding on the back of trans ideology to step into politics.

In my constituency which is a solid conservative seat we've had, in recent years, 2 female MPs, the current one has no links with the local area and is only interested in appeasing the Party, and is useless as a constituency MP. The previous who was local to the area and lost the whip because she voted against the government on Brexit. She was a fantastic constituent MP. Even though I'm naturally a labour voter the previous one did an amazing job of looking after the constituents.

For Sheffield the local candidate with a track record has to be the right person for the job unless an outsider can come in who can do a better job. Izzard can't do that. All he can do is further the trans aims of Starmer's current Labour Party.

I understand what you are saying about the bigger picture, don't get me wrong, but a robust challenge against Labour needs to be against someone higher up the food chain in my opinion.

I guess I'd like to know more about what this least worst scenario will mean for women's rights?

And for women's rights locally to Sheffield I'd go with a woman who lives there over a trans identifying male , who has made his feelings clear on what he thinks of women's safe spaces, and has nothing to do with the local area any day of the week,

I understand what you are saying about the bigger picture, don't get me wrong, but a robust challenge against Labour needs to be against someone higher up the food chain in my opinion.
I think where I disagree with you is that I think anyone who wants to sit in parliament, and potentially vote for legislation that could be devastating for women's rights should be capable of dealing with robust questions. I'm not even implying that Abtisam isn't capable of that - what I am questioning is the protectiveness. My original post - the one you replied to - to was in response to fromorbit for whom I have a lot of time, but who appeared to be criticising people simply for questioning her on Twitter. If she wins, Abtisam will be in a powerful position and dealing with difficult questions will be part and parcel of her job.

If she wins, Abtisam will be in a powerful position and dealing with difficult questions will be part and parcel of her job.

And if she loses Izzard will likely win. How will he advance the cause of women in Sheffield?

And beyond Sheffield for that matter?

Have you a candidate for this seat that can trump Abtisam on women's issues?

Izzard will advance nothing and no one but Izzard.

However it may prove an extremely illuminating experience for everyone concerned about many of the issues women are struggling to be permitted to talk about.

I am so very, very tired of having to try and distinguish between the least of two awful options. And it is not that I do not appreciate what Abtisam has done for the area, I have a particularly lovely neighbour who is a local Labour councillor. Lovely man, works hard, cares about the community.

But he is wedded to Labour, furthers the causes of Labour, and thereby supports absolute batshit anti reality, authoritarianism and male supremacism. He supports it, he enables it, he is part of it, he believes in it.

I cannot and will not ever vote for him. He's the person I'd pick to run the local community centre, the person I'd invite round to tea, but until he shifts allegiance to a saner group - politically I would not trust him as far as I can spit.

Well that's your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it.

I don't agree that trashing Abtisam to advance Izzard to bring sunlight is the way forward because there are people in Sheffield who need good constituency representation.

Maybe you haven't had to use constituency MPs in the way i have, I don't know, but their role is not just national.

Equally that approach might well backfire. Until Labour changes it's track blaming a Muslim woman who is active in her local community for the anti woman stance of the Labour Party doesn't sit well with me.

Asking questions of a potential parliamentary candidate is neither blaming nor trashing. Quite frankly, lifeturnsonadime if that's the way you are going to represent the argument then I think it's best to disengage for now. Good night.

But this is insane. You said that you would rather a trans candidate than a woman candidate on the basis of a single tweet about trans awareness. I'm asking how that helps local women?

You are trashing Abtisam by making assumptions about her position on women's rights on this basis. You are blaming her for the Labour party woes rather than addressing the broader point of the national policies of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

I'll ask again have you a good alternative to do the job of the local parliamentary candidate?

I'm very willing to have a good faith argument here. The big picture is that we agree that women matter.

I can't vote labour in a general election either for the same reasons as you but I can't get behind what you are suggesting for the labour party candidate because it doesn't make any sense. It benefits no one least of all women in Sheffield.

You said that you would rather a trans candidate than a woman candidate on the basis of a single tweet about trans awareness.
No I did not say that. I said I had reached the stage of asking the question. I also said I was open to persuasion.

I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but this level of misunderstanding is starting to feel like misrepresentation.
This is why I am disengaging.

Indeed - quite the ratio!