KJK is standing against Lloyd Russell-Mole in the General Election

[BoreOfWhabylon]

https://www.youtube.com/live/vHudcvW0bSQ?si=kj-pX6z_ioL6l3nj

If the trouble KJK stirs up is demonstrating Moyle acting like a sexist twat, then I'm all for it.

If innocent fathers holding their tiny babies get his staff aggressively calling them names, then let's see it.

Sometimes an iPhone recording is enough to show people as they are

That baby rant is next level

This saves me saying it. He's a very poor orator, taking his previous career into account.

And anyway, barristers don't debate in court, they present evidence and ask pre-prepared questions, then make representations to the judge.

Yes it’s a different skill set, it’s interesting some think it will confer. It might but it’s obvious from how he deals with TV interviews that for him it does not.

He’s working at it and you can tell

I’d say KJK is someone who makes TV look effortless. At ease. Not many people have that natural ability

What I mean is, Starmer as a barrister will do his homework and have answers to her debating points in a way other opponents wouldn't. He'll also be able identify difficult questions for her - debate is two way. Look at how difficult he's been to deal with for both Sunak and Johnson at PMQs.

It's a completely different kettle of fish to debating Harrop and I think she's bottled it. On lots of levels actually, because as PP said she's picked a constituency where she's probably going to lose her deposit and stands no chance of being elected. If I'd signed up to PoW I'd feel a bit taken advantage of as it looks like she has no intention of actually being in government.

I'm not a fan of hers anyway, I think a lot of what she does is to generate controversy for clicks, for her own personal gain. Going up against LRM is entirely consistent with my impression of her.

Still unsure what the end game is.

She cant be trying to win votes. Kemp Town is full of trans activists but also has lots of feminists who fiercely support the rape crisis case and the other soc fem campaigns like the girls inclusion toolkit. She clearly isn't trying to win over either of these groups.

Is it really just to cause chaos? Seems a shame if so.

Although I see your point, I don't agree that Keir Starmer was the best choice to challenge. She'd have risked becoming just another protest vote, maybe even dismissed as a crank.
She could also have been accused of a political campaign against Labour. Like it or not, Labour is very likely to win the next election; we're going to need to work with them.

Keir Starmer isn't a TRA. Lloyd Russell-Moyle is, and a pretty obnoxious one at that. He deserves to lose his seat.

It isn't the Labour party that is Kellie's ultimate target, nor should it be.

The Rozzers

She's trying to get the issue of the rollback of women's rights and the destruction of child safeguarding more widely discussed and understood. The endgame is to reverse the rollback of women's rights and protect children from unnecessary medicalisation and surgery.

I think Kemp Town is a good choice because it is TRA central and LRM is a loose cannon when it comes to men's privileges activism. Publicity will inevitably result, more people will hear about and understand the horrors which have been perpetrated in the name of "trans rights" and the press will ask the Labour Party more searching questions about their plans. One hopes, anyway. All power to KJK - she is a lioness.

I don't think she would have been allowed anywhere near Starmer on the basis she might cause him a Gordon Brown moment.

I agree she wants to cause the maximum controversy which has probably factored in to the decision to stand against LRM. I just don't see it as a bad thing. It's always been her schtick and it's raised a lot of awareness over the years.

She might be marmite to a lot of people but her AHF campaign was a huge part of getting all this into the public consciousness.

Who debates and where?

Obviously the two leaders do but would KJK actually have that time with Starmer anywhere?

I doubt it otherwise we would have had Count Bin Face squaring up to Boris in 2019.

Shame really! 😂

I think that any person donating to the Party for Women know upfront that they are not likely to get a member elected. If people are donating because they believe that these women will get a member into parliament at this election, they really shouldn't be donating money to political parties that started within the last two months.

And if people are donating money to something when they cannot afford to, then again, they need support to stop doing that. However, that is not the responsibility of a party that started two months ago to warn and support people who would seem to be not making wise life decisions.

No. Kier Starmer is a party leader hoping to be the next PM and in a very, very safe seat. There is approximately no chance those standing against him will get to debate with him. His job over the next six weeks is to be on the campaign trail focusing primarily on the seats Labour needs to win from the Tories.

Yeah. We know you're not a fan. Threads and threads of you not being a fan were created.

I think you're overstating how effective Starmer has been in PMQs, frankly (probably because you like him). I don't think he has been, overly (and I used to like him, but his apparent lack of ability has been surprising at times).

I also think you're overstating how well he'd do against KJK (for the above-mentioned reasons).

And how many times do you need telling that it's about sunlight, not about actually winning a seat (or even not losing the deposit)?

I'm pretty sure PoW members are intelligent enough to work out what's what. They don't need you to consider how somebody (who thinks like you) might feel. Clue: they most likely don't think like you, as they actually get what this is about and support it.

Ultimately, it's fine that you don't get / support what she's doing. You're not target market, as you're happy to have men in women's spaces.

Yes thanks for confirming this, I had assumed it was the case

KJK just wouldn’t have the time with him, it’s not about the barrister thing in pp

She could also have been accused of a political campaign against Labour. Like it or not, Labour is very likely to win the next election; we're going to need to work with them.
Really? You really think Starmer's skin is so thin that, if an opponent calls him to account and asks him the questions that no journalist seems interested in asking, that he'd react by refusing to work with any gender critical women - including the ones in his own party? If that's the case then we're stuffed anyway.

You might be right that there will be so many protest candidates against Starmer, that she wouldn't have even got near enough to ask any questions. I think that's a fair point. If that was the reason, I'd have liked to see her stand against Anneliese Dodds.

I just think LRM is basically a no-mark, albeit an odious one, and I think standing against him is granting him far more importance than he deserves. I'm sure it will be a good spectacle, maybe even a great one, but it just strikes me as a missed opportunity.

That said, it's her decision and also a brave one and I wish her all the best.

Angela Rayner's seat would have been interesting. The Worker's Party have already said they're standing, and will aim to capitalise on Gaza & AR is pretty full on TWAW

he'd react by refusing to work with any gender critical women - including the ones in his own party?

Like Rosie Duffield?

It doesn't matter how prepared Starmer or Moyle are, if someone who knows what they're talking is asking the questions, their belief in transgender ideology will make their answers ridiculous.

No, that's neither what I said or what I think.

By challenging the Leader of the Opposition, particularly as he is not a rampant TRA, it would leave Kellie open to accusations of attacking the Labour party, not the TRA ideology, making it easier to dismiss her and what she stands for.
After all, Rishi Sunak at one point found himself unable to define a woman. Why not challenge him and get the same discussion? Why not challenge the Leader of the Liberal Democrats?

By standing against an outspoken TRA, not a party Leader, Kellie addresses the issue itself and doesn't risk her opponent sounding reasonable because he doesn't believe all the TWAW guff.
She knows that this is a constituency where many of the locals are only too happy to talk about the issue she plans to raise.

😂

Nothing like a bit of hyperbole. 2 threads (one still being "looked into" is hardly threads and threads. One was a continuation of another. And I wasn't expecting everyone on the board to recognise my name

I'm not "happy to have men in womens spaces". That's you misrepresenting me to get other readers to ignore what I posted.

That’s why they avoid it so much

EasternStandard · Today 16:02
Datun · Today 15:53

+ + It doesn't matter how prepared Starmer or Moyle are, if someone who knows what they're talking is asking the questions, their belief in transgender ideology will make their answers ridiculous. + +

That’s why they avoid it so much

Those feet of clay aren't serving them well, are they?

Bit disappointed she's not standing against Keir Starmer, but this is how I feel about this. Bring it on...!

Anyone thinking that she'll get fewer votes because it's a high % TRA constituency is naive. It's often these areas that have the greatest proportion of 'GC' support, as has been seen on petition/donation rate maps.