Are you voting in the next general election purely on the transgender issue?

[TeacherAnonymous123]

Just as the title says really! Is that your only thought about who you'll vote for, or will you look at wider policies? Been getting lots of information through my letter box recently, and none mention it.

The EU went out of its way to be difficult. The UK offered a 'smart' border for NI and RoI, which is used all over the EU where it meets non-member countries. The EU said it would not work. The border between NI and the RoI is covered by the Common Travel Act - the EU was demanding that a system set up before it existed and works much better than Shengeng, be made inoperable. That's the EU being intransigent. Personally I'd have left without a deal. The attitude of the EU, btw, was shown very clearly when France threatened to cut off the energy supply to the Channel Isles (never part of the EU) when licences were refused to French fishermen who had been illegally fishing Channel Isle waters for years. LIcences were only granted to those fisherman who had applied the rules to their fishing in those waters - why should one licence thieves, which is what the unlicensed French fishermen were?

Immigration is a tough one I agree with pp that it was the main driver for the Brexit voter so I’m not surprised it became a ‘red line’. Otherwise why win the vote

One problem was many countries had labour shortage at the same time due to post pandemic, Aus for example had the same problem. May well do still

The CTA does indeed predate the EU. That means that when the UK and Ireland entered into it, neither was subject to external restrictions as a result of being in a massive trading bloc. In the intervening years both the UK and Ireland joined the EU (simultaneously, for fairly obvious reasons) and so when that situation changed, it changed for both the UK and Ireland, in the same way and at the same time, having no impact on the CTA.

Obviously one of the two then deciding to leave the EU whilst the other remained completely changed the whole situation. It was never going to be possible to return to the status quo ante, because things have moved on considerably since the 1960s.

Leaving without a deal would have been hugely irresponsible and undemocratic, particularly in light of the fact that Northern Ireland voted to remain.

If we'd had a subsequent referendum on hard vs soft Brexit we'd have ended up with soft Brexit for sure.

And how much good did they do for women? Thatcher was known for not helping women - her track record was terrible.

Just having a woman as leader doesn't mean anything. Imagine if Penny TWAW Mordaunt became leader.

Having a female leader on its own doesn't necessarily mean the party will be good for women in general, no. Similarly, the current Tory cabinet is stuffed full of people of colour whose parents came to the UK as immigrants, but that doesn't translate to immigration friendly policies.

But I do think that not having had a female leader in 2024 says something important about you as a party. It's just not plausible that no woman has ever been the best candidate to lead Labour. I'm sure Yvette Cooper would have done a better job than Corbyn, for example.

I also think it is a sign of systemic misogyny that we always talk about female leaders as not having been good for women, as if it's a justification for why there have not been more of them. Firstly, we never judge male leaders in this way. (Perhaps because we assume that male leadership will always benefit men and if their leadership happens to benefit women as well it's because they're oh so progressive.) And secondly I think that women in positions of leadership often realise that their place at the top table is uncertain, and that they wouldn't be allowed to be there if they were too openly feminist. (That's what makes Kemi Badenoch so unusual.)

And there we have it, the safeguarding of women and children isn’t an important issue. We just don’t count.

@Dineasair I really struggle to see how others can’t understand that for many women (and men) this really is the most important issue.

If a politician is willing to lie about something as fundamental as biological reality then I’m afraid nothing else they say or promise has any value.

To add a different twist on this:

If a politician is prepared to argue for laws which enshrine a belief (that not everyone holds) as fact, even if it's unclear whether that politician a) holds that belief themselves or b) is in a "hostage" situation where they have to keep their own party members or fund providers happy, how can they be trusted to make any decisions on anything when it comes to serving the public?

Keir, are you watching what's currently happening between Humza Yusaf and his "captors"? He tried to break free from them but couldn't. Do you really want that for yourself?

And to add:

Where is your tipping point, Keir?

If you don't care about data integrity being lost when it comes to decisions about where public money is spent (do we need more money spent on security in women's prisons because more "women" are now committing violent crime and sex offences?), or speaking out to save women's sports, where do you stand on allowing schools to teach children about this belief as if it's a fact now that you know that thousands of children are at risk of lifelong medical dependency and complications? If the scandal itself doesn't shock you, how are you going to fund the NHS when their medical complications start putting a strain on services?
At what point do you say enough is enough and you can't keep forcing everyone to accept the belief that we all have a gender identity? Are you going to introduce hate crime laws that are designed to stop me speaking out against this? As PPs have said, we've seen what's happening in Canada, Scotland and other countries that are governed in this way.

No. The Labour Party have hugely pissed me off on this issue, but overall I feel that the Conservatives are just so bad for the country and I disagree with them on so many other things that my priority is to vote against them.

This basically. Starmer's stance on the whole trans debate fucks me off, but so does having a broken NHS, broken education system for SEND kids, a PM that couldn't give a toss about climate change and immigration flights to Rwanda. The Tories have totally royally fucked the U.K. over and absolutely do not deserve another 5 years.

No.

I am a woman, and a feminist, but I am also disabled and have a school aged disabled child who doesn't have access to appropriate provision.

I have to be his voice too.

It does mean something. It means that if a woman is able enough and/or popular enough she can reach the highest positions in the land - and be taken seriously. It signals to girls that women can be the PM of a country.

The Tories are not known for identity politics - in the sense of group identities; it is more about individuals

It does mean something. It means that if a woman is able enough and/or popular enough she can reach the highest positions in the land - and be taken seriously. It signals to girls that women can be the PM of a country.

Liz Truss was neither popular nor able. And look how that ended.

There happened to be a radio piece on Thatcher earlier, on Times Radio or R4

She did incredibly well to succeed to PM, even if people are not admiring the policies

It was fascinating, think it’s a series

At the last election she won her seat with a majority of over 26,000. A seat she had held since 2020. She was also popular enough amongst her own party membership to win a leadership election to become PM.

Thatcher became PM by being more of a bloke than the men around her. She did nothing for women and seemed to despise them.

She was not ‘more of a bloke’

Women don’t have to be a certain way, it’s sexist to think they should be

Of course they don't have to behave in a certain way. But Thatcher became PM by displaying more traditional, stereotypical male characteristics of the 1970s than many men around her.

I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm not saying women should be ladylike and dainty. It's what she did. She was our first woman PM but she really didn't further the cause of women in general and seemed to have no time for most women.

You are missing my point. Growing up in the 1970's there were no female newsreaders,no female experts on TV, doctors were still imagined to be male...and so on...certainly no female P.M. Thatcher changed that - and it was thrilling for a woman to finally have reached that position - regardless of whether or not you agreed with her policies, or liked her personality etc,

She was very popular with the grassroots membership - which is how she got elected.

That’s such an old fashioned way to view a female PM

You may not agree with her policies but they were hers and therefore led by a woman

There’s no mould women have to fit, and I actually think she did show many it can be achieved which is in its own right a good thing.

I hope we’ve moved on and people don’t say she’s more of a bloke to their dc, especially girls

Yes, Angela Ripon was the first...but do you recall what a fuss was made of the fact?