Possible explanation for recent backtracking?

[lurkingluggage]

Hi, delurking and very nervously posting!

I've been following this board for a long time and there are a couple of current threads that are focusing on the apparent change of opinion by some labour mps re womens rights.

What I haven't seen mentioned, and why I am posting, is an interview that took place on R4 Today programme last Wednesday (26th).

The (stand-in) presenter was Chris Mason and he was talking with the director of JLPartners pollsters, Scarlett Maguire about the impact the culture wars could have on voters.

It's available on bbc sounds at around 1.45.00 and is worth listening to purely for CMs comment about Keir Starmer.

I think it also gives a very clear idea of why certain MPs are reversing!

Apologies for any formatting errors!

What did CM say?

It was the Today programme.
CM asked SM about the impact of 'culture war's issues on voting- and SM highlights that (paraphrase); rather than the issues themselves neccessarily affecting voter choices, there is an impact around the sense voters will have of a politicians values, for example. SM used what happened with the GRR and surrounding events on Nicola Sturgeon's popularity to illustrate the point.
Agree OP- this does seem to tie in with the recent LP comments made about 'reflecting' on the recent SNP situation.

Rather tentatively, but with conviction, that KS saying that women can have penises left him looking daft.

It did - they all look prats parroting this nonsense - especially when they regale everyone (in this mixed up turbulent world of ours) with the information (cue insincere sugary voices) that this group is the most vulnerable in the world.

Of course it's being spoken about on the doorstep and of course it's starting to reflect in the polling.

There's an awful lot of "on the record" bullshit that they can't deny

I agree.
I also think the timing of this is interesting.
I'm putting this badly but do they hope to put enough water between themselves and this issue before the next GE?

Yes, I think so. They want people to forget that they ever said some of the stupid things they came out with about cervixes.

My issue is that they have completely destroyed my trust in their intelligence, honesty and sincerity. The fact that we're now starting on the run-up to a GE just makes the new spin look like rank opportunism.

They'll need to make some cast-iron promises, but the evidence so far is that they still don't get it. Wes Streeting's 'apology' was spectacularly half-arsed.
And he said that he never noticed there might be a problem until Isla Bryson toddled into view with his blond wig, pink leggings, pink spotty brolly and rape convictions. Really, Wes? Really? You are either tremendously stupid or an outright liar. And then you STILL didn't say anything for SIX MONTHS.

So an opportunist as well. Super, that gets my vote.. Oh, wait...

Thank you lurkingluggage for pointing out that programme on the 26th, which I have now just listened to.

The pollster said that the transgender issue, and others like statues, or green policies are not as important a factor in voting as others like the NHS, fuel bills, poverty, and immigration; but she agreed that a politicians views on these things can affect their branding and could affect how people vote. She was a little contradictory there imo.

It had in fact been CM who had interjected to extrapolate by bringing in Kier Starmer’s ‘women with penises‘ remarks as possibly doing him no favours, then she agreed that yes, this affects ‘branding’ just as it had very seriously with Nicola Sturgeon with the Isla Bryson effect.

I think you are right, OP. This programme may well have moved KS and WS to act.

It's worth remembering that political parties indulge in insane amounts of polling / focus groups and feedback. We know this is coming up - just as we know the reality of the doorstep conversations despite their lies about them not happening.

The next months of reverse ferreting will be fascinating to watch.

Perhaps that's what we need to do if we get doorstepped? Not ask them 'what is a woman?', because everyone knows that even those that are prepared to lie to your face. We should be telling them it makes them look like lying idiots. It makes them look like someone I wouldn't trust to run an errand, never mind run the country.

Whoever thought a rapist in a bad wig would do so much for women's rights.

V good point.

At the end of the day it all comes down to trust.

For me, the fact that KS avoids saying single sex spaces instead using the nebulous safe space means I can't trust him.
What I was most relieved about from the short interview was the fact that a presenter, on our national broadcasting station that isn't known for it's impartiality on this topic (although it's getting better) actually said what most people are thinking. And if he can do it, so can others.
I guess we can all be the child pointing out the emperor has no clothes

I agree. We shouldn’t ask them questions that they have prepared answers for in order to fit in with what they believe is the current Correct Thing. We should just tell them that everyone knows that statements like “some women have penises” are just wrong, and they’ve made themselves look foolish and dishonest by going along with this.

I think they have realised that they look like idiots by saying ‘some women have penises’ and it creates a credibility issue. I also think that they realise the media are not going to give up asking the question, sometimes it’s effective interviewing really wetting to the issues such as the recent interview with Iain Anderson by Beth Rigby which they know they can’t answer effectively or where the journalist appears to be having a great time asking Nicola Sturgeon about ‘Isla’ Bryson. If journalists keep in doing this every interview will be skewed towards it and Labour can’t then get their messages out about policies which people care about according to the pollster e.g. Education, eco policies, energy stability, COL and the NHS. Thank goodness it’s happening but I don’t trust them yet as language is so skewed I don’t know if they mean females are biological females and what is a safe space and does it differ from a single sex space. News stories are coming out rapidly to show how far it’s gone and the real impacts it is having in girls and women.

If KS is now saying a woman is an adult human female, I think we also need his definition of female.

Actually, we don't. We all know what a woman is and what a female is. What we need to hear him say is that transwomen are not women. It's going to take something big like that to regain votes from those of us he turned his back on.

Formerly he said ‘It’s the law’ meaning TWAW.

Now he would need to say a that it’s the law that TW with GRCs are not females who can use a single sex spaces or provisions.

Sunak needs to say this too though.

I want Starmer to be asked to commit to single-sex spaces (every time he uses 'safe spaces') & asked, "What is a female?", because that seems to be the wiggle room this week. If female can include anyone else, then Starmer hasn't moved at all.

I still don't trust Labour. If they flip flop like this in opposition, what would they do in governement? Or if Starmer really is a changed man, what if he loses the leadership & someone else steps in?

government

I agree that the Tories need to tighten up the language in the EA and it's frustrating that they are dragging their feet on this.
I do think that things are changing though and momentum is building

I really don't think it's going to happen. Maybe Andrew Neil will get stuck in, Beth Rigby another. But I can't see bog standard interviewers, even ones looking to catch him out, pushing Starmer on what he means by adult female.

And if he's by any chance asked if an adult female can have a penis, he'll say absolutely not, and women will have safe spaces protected under a Labour government.

This leaves us with plenty of doubts, but he'll judge, probably correctly, that this will be sufficient to assuage the fears of women not on MN, and appear very "both sides" and sympathetic to all parties for the larger electorate who are not in any way as triggered by this subject as we are.

A lot of politicians signed the trans pledge and I haven't seen any of them remove their signature.

My sense is that it's started to filter into their consciousness that a proportion of noisy gender activists turn out to be... politically not assets.

See e.g. Sam Brinton in a US context.

For Labour, this felt like a cool issue pioneered by clever, exciting young boundary-breakers. I don't think it does any more.

It can take a few years for the escalating nature of some behaviours to become apparent, especially if you are doing all you can not to look at them with a critical eye.

Delicately phrased, lordloveadog.

These certainly are 'boundary breakers' - I guess maybe it's becoming apparent that some boundaries are not 'cool' to break.

For me, the fact that KS avoids saying single sex spaces instead using the nebulous safe space means I can't trust him.

Even if he started saying 'single sex spaces' I wouldn't trust him, not since Labour gave us the gift of the GRA and 'legal sex'.

I would need to hear him say 'single biological sex spaces', with examples.