Wes Streeting’s Double Speak

[CrocsNotDocs]

Seems like he is not for biological reality and protecting children from gender medicine after all. Caught on hidden camera pandering to the TRA mob. I really dislike people who speak out of different sides of their mouths to play to different audiences.

x.com/jamesesses/status/1967660832998748534?s=46

You forgot the caveat as in facilitated by a moral panic.

A pragmatic politician is not necessarily the most ideological or purist....because they need to get a sense for the public mood and the way the wind is blowing.....which is exactly what Labour need to do now. Going more to the Left and towards a TRA agenda would be suicide. Streeting's pragmatism is his strength at present.

I'm a little relieved to hear Julie Bindel's thoughts on the matter. She can spot bullshit a mile off.

A politician is always going to say to the people they're talking to "I'm on your side"
I'm not concerned about much in that post, apart from the delay in the puberty blocker trial. I can't see how they're going to get it off the ground within the usual constraints of a medical trial.

I don’t think this video indicates Streeting has moved at all. Sympathising with distressed (and deluded) young people who have been led to believe that puberty blockers are their salvation is a reasonable thing to do. Referring to the trial that Cass proposed is a reasonable thing to do. He says he must go where the evidence leads. It can’t have been an easy gig for him.

Above I have taken the Bindel line and I'm sticking with that but I'm now wondering why James Esses has taken this line. I've always had a lot of time for him but posting a collage of edited clips to skewer Labour is disingenuous at best. WS has moved and is moving us in the right direction and we can do without mischief making from our own side.

I agree with this.

On the most divisive issues we need people who can be sympathetic to both sides whilst building policy on actual material facts.

I admire Esses for a lot of the things he's actually done. But I don't like his tweet output much. He could do with someone on his comms IMO!

I was going to say something similar. I totally understand his motivation, but his tweets are fairly click-baity.

Great post - and a fascinating thread that exemplifies how easy it is to get outraged at edited clips until clear evidence arrives that exposes nuance and complexity which suggests different motivations. I reckon Streeting is as safe a pair of hands we're going to get at the moment and agree he must feel continually conflicted by all this.

For me the issue is why is the NHS having activist LGBT conference given their failure to provide safe, adequate maternity care, functioning A & E services with scandal after scandal hitting the headlines. As usual, spending tax payers money on luxury issues.

Wes Streeting has had kidney cancer in the past. I think he is genuinely trying his best for the NHS, not least because he has been through it as a patient. When you get a hard stare at your own mortality, I think you reassess life and what’s important. He wants to do right by everyone but he knows you have to face reality and facts. For the health and safety of everyone you need to look at the evidence.

I agree we need to see the whole thing before we can judge his position. But even then, i think we'd all come up with a different interpretation.

And I agree that TRA is an electoral liability, and i dont know how they could legalisate for men in womens spaces now. But i dont know how TR are seen within the party. Is it something that the majority would abandon or use as a bargaining chip?

What is fustrating is that it is clear that women have the right to single sex spaces, and Streeting on the surface supports this, but men are still using womens spaces and the government has not made a clear statement. So the danger is that the government remains sympathetic to both sides, and leaves the status quo, where its not legal but men continue to use them and women have to be the ones to fight it. And he appears to take a similar stance with healthcare.

The clips i saw seems to suggest that he can see the real life problems - the bloke in the ladies. But the government are the ones who need to be clear and not seem baffled.

I have a lot of time for bindel, but she is closer to being 'of the left' than an ultra. And that makes a difference to what she would take away from this.

Agree with pp about James Eases as I am not a fan of his Twitter output either. I feel he increasingly goes for a sensationalist spin on things that is designed to provide outrage, rather than taking a more measured and nuanced approach. I don't think it's helpful.

A really good, clear analysis and I agree.

Aren't they all, though? The format of twitter encourages provocative posting.

Leaving here for prostarity...

Prediction: This Hillsborough Law thing is going to bite Labour on the arse fairly rapidly when it comes to Gender...

https://x.com/DavidLammy/status/1967950371017617745

In fairness, plenty of people used to be non GC, me included.

Having read the comments, I'm persuaded to give Streeting the benefit of the doubt, but as in all things, that could change if credible information is received that makes it necessary to change my opinion. Lets hope I don't have to change my opinion. 🤔

I also agree, it's not a good idea to trust video clips that have obliviously been edited.

Can you explain......I'm not familiar with what the new law is going to imply, especially when it comes to gender?

Especially when they give only two minutes out of a 40 minute recording and those two minutes have obviously been taken out of context and edited. I would want to watch the whole thing before even thinking of condemning him. I prefer to judge by actions, not words, and so far his actions have been what I would hope to see, given the febrile state of the Labour party and indeed wider society.

Apologies. Double posted.

Errrr...

....then I can't help you.

Try paying attention to language and perceptions.

There's a government summary here

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hillsborough-law-bill#:~:text=Details,and%20delivering%20justice%20for%20victims

I must admit I'm not entirely clear either, it seems to mostly be about inquests.

What?

To those, including myself, who don't know about the Hillsborough law, or its ramifications, your post was esoteric. I was asking for clarification and explanation. What's the point in posting something if people do not understand its context?