Did Keir Starmer just say

[Helpuschoose]

To Nick Ferrari on LBC that transwomen with a GRC will not be allowed in female single-sex spaces? It sounded like it. Is this a clear move or does it still leave wriggle-room? I’m not sure.

It’s infuriating that there’s so many incredibly important issues that need to be dealt with but all the left wing parties (bar the Communists) don’t seem to know what a woman is and therefore can’t protect women’s rights. We shouldn’t have to deal with this crap. Imagine if you really wanted to vote for a party but you knew they were Flat Earthers. How can you trust them with anything if they deny basic scientific truth?

I'm am fairly sure Wes Streeting only started to get It because gay men started to raise concerns.

There's a theme about women speaking up and being ignored.

It's coming up in focus groups because potential Blair era Labour supporters moved to the Lib Dems in 2010 and then the Cons in 2015.

Labour needs the swing in this group to win. These are voters with a proven track record for turn out.

The left wing, youth vote is much more unreliable.

BUT

This group is worried about the left wing authoritarian Corbynite section of the party. In 2015 this group cost Labour the election because ultimately they couldn't vote for Corbyn. That don't trust the left wing of Labour.

The subject isn't about trans. It's about the direction and power within Labour itself.

That's why Blair was wheeled out.

Makes a lot of sense - and that's encouraging.

It's unbelievably fucking annoying that women's rights alone aren't considered important - but if they're symptomatic of a wider issue (as we've been saying ALL ALONG in our shrill incomprehensible little lady voices) we might just get somewhere.

But surely the left wing of Labour are weaker now than they've been for decades? Whether you think that's a good thing is a matter of opinion, but I don't think the movers and shakers in the Labour Party see them as a realistic threat. But of course, it's always good to keep a bogeyman handy. The volatile youth vote is a big worry for Labour. Well, for all parties, but especially for Labour, generally expected to do best there.

Imagine if you really wanted to vote for a party but you knew they were Flat Earthers. How can you trust them with anything if they deny basic scientific truth?

Exactly. Even if I could overlook thr sexism, and willingness to ignore the needs of half the population, we're still left the problem of prioritising lobbying over reality.

If they will completely ignore facts and evidence on one issue, there is nothing to stop them doing the same with any other issue on the say so of whatever bonkers pressure group gets their ear.

This is irrelevant.

It's a trust thing.

There is still fear that the 'woke stuff' is dominating even now that's the left and the right is too cowardly to turn around and say no to it.

The fact that the right are quite happy to not see the problem with it, is an even worse scenario.

I can't find the clip from BBCQT where Keir Starmer had a woman's question about Rosie Duffield and responded appallingly.
Would much appreciate anyone who can re-link.please.

Wasn't it Miliband in 2015? That was the election where Cameron promised the Brexit referendum. Corbyn took the leadership after that, and stood in 2017 and 2019

I see your optimism, I like your optimism. I dont share it.

I dont know how I'm voting, except not labour.

I have been banging on about this subject for many years, I dont have the capacity to basically start again.

I have no hopes for the media, they've done next to nothing since 2003, I doubt that will improve much.

I also doubt this will be back burner, it's free for the government, wont take much time to sort and is a immediate 'win' add in blue hairs making an almighty fuss and I guarantee itll be done within a month.

They wont be sorting other stuff out, they already said they wont change anything the torys already have in place. Spending will be the same.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/860b9b92-9b0d-4321-ba97-6a18b367bdf4?shareToken=f4c57ce4468cb25273c8135dfa6e3259

Even if true and I think it's been found to not be true, this doesn't show starmer as leadership/prime minister material.

Is he going to swing or flip flop cos his kids said something different to mainstream yesterday?

Do we run countries for the purpose of all inhabitants or just his children?

Definitely not voting Labour here - though this is as much due to knowledge and experience of the candidate more broadly. Even if I was won over by Labour’s national policies (and generally I do think we need changes of government, any party in power too long is a bad thing) I could not vote for the local Labour candidate.

There you go.
https://twitter.com/Sorelle_Arduino/status/1803895987255079017?t=blcDvb96Zy5_pfeTX3GeGA&s=19

Thank you muchly @Imnobody4

JKR nails it there, and captures the view on many posters here I'm sure. It's certainly mine; agree with every word.

This is the front page today on the paper copy.

Yes he did say this. He could see it.

Perhaps not because of concern for women, no idea of his position on that, but perhaps because he has previously said he regretted introducing the ban on fox hunting due to all the political time snd energy it consumed. The women’s rights/ gender ideology is even bigger than that.

That is a scorching article. I wholeheartedly agree with everything he says and his portrayal of women.

I too have heard our Labour Party candidate talk of how the party has evolved its understanding ( though from comments of a colleague at a hustings, it barely seems to have evolved at all).

But as Brandon says, why did you need to ‘evolve’? I didn’t need to ‘evolve’ to immediately grasp the obvious dangers of allowing any man in women’s spaces because the mere act of them entering that space meant they were unquestioningly a woman. Believing this is an infantile level of thinking. Utterly unworthy of respect.

All those who have, or still do, go along with this are cowardly opportunitists or cretins. There is no third explanation

It really is. I didn’t think my opinion of that man could get lower, but it now has.

Effectively, when asked if he agrees with RD, he replies he agrees with TB ( who has the same view as RD).

Gosh he sure knows what a woman is when he’s deciding whose views to copy or not, doesn’t he?

He is so proud of the Equality Act, but basically he discriminated against Rosie Duffield because she was not a man in power and of the same political group as his own.

I've just read this in the Spectator by Gareth Roberts. It might be the best article I've ever read about Starmer. Tbf, it's likely the only article I've ever read about Starmer

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-boring-truth-about-keir-starmer/

He is so strangely resistant when it comes to giving Rosie any credit or grace on this issue of women's rights that I'm beginning to think he dislikes her for being an uppity woman who refuses to know her place - he might very well resent her challenge to his authority.

I mean if he has no problem accepting a very garbled version of roughly the same thing Rosie has been saying for years then perhaps it's because the very male Tony Blair has status in the male hierarchy and Rosie, being a woman, does not. I would hate to think Kier Starmer is one of those men who can't bear to be corrected by a woman but he's being insanely stubborn and unhelpful towards Rosie to the point that it seems personal for him in some way.

Cake, I do so much interesting reading thanks to you 💐

I agree that it seems there must be some personal animus towards Rosie, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. Whether it's because she's a woman (certainly the most likely explanation), or for some other reason, it's not a good look for Labour, and voters will draw their own conclusions.