Mumsnet is now backing Reform UK - survey

[IwantToRetire]

The ladies are for turning after all – as a new survey reveals that one in five of the politically engaged mothers on the social networking site are ready to pledge allegiance to Nigel Farage

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mumsnet-labour-reform-school-gates-keir-starmer-b2894524.html

Also in full at https://archive.is/V5P6n

Some may look at a headline and jump to attack/defence mode. The key point is 1 in 5 understand Reform are the party of the women.

the survey is as you point out a swing and the more people on Mumsnet that see that the only parties that can state what a woman and a breast feeding person is( a women) are the conservatives and reform, the rest seem barmy for men pretending to be women and taking over your spaces.

What we also know is what a pile of crap the Tories were( I was a voter) but cannot vote again, even for Kemi. Even is she won the would replace her with the old guards pick as they anointed Sunak and Hunt despite members views.

Too long women have had to fight for rights, centuries and yet a minority community is eroding those rights within the few years since COVID.

Safety of women doesn’t appear to be a priority of most other parties either, undocumented migration and cultures showing no respect for women’s rights shouldn’t be encouraged as this will erode those hard fought for rights even further.

I don't think there's many UK voters who are just willing to lie down and die assisted suicide accept that standard of living for themselves and their children is irrevocably fucked.

And it's not inevitable, is it? There are things that could be done to improve quality of life. Spend fewer millions of taxpayer money on DEI rainbow badges and jobs in the NHS like Bumba, and the consequent court cases, and put it towards maintaining the roads or frontline nurses like Sandie Peggie. Even HR commented how it was insane (I'm massively paraphrasing) that the NHS was on its knees and they were removing a trained nurse from frontline work because of the wants of a deluded man (again paraphrasing). We'll never know how many people suffered harm because Sandie wasn't there but we know that there are many accounts of extremely substandard healthcare at Fife which at times resulted in real harm.

Maybe prioritise the human rights of grooming gang survivors over their rapists and perhaps, I don't know, crazy idea, prosecute the police officers and social workers who allowed the abuse to go unchecked (many of whom promoted and now in positions of greater power). It's still happening FFS and whilst there are no professional consequences for letting it happen (and in fact the opposite is true for those that spoke up to protect the children like Maggie Oliver who had to quit her job to do so) then child abuse will continue. It's tacitly enabled by the elite.

It's all choices that those in power have made. They are choosing to make everyone else's quality of life worse to protect their lives and wealth and promote their ideologies.

Nothing illustrates this more than allowing sex offending men into women's prisons to punch down on and remove the human rights of vulnerable and powerless women prisoners. Harms to vulnerable women for having the 'right' opinions within the chattering classes, sucking up to media luvvies and votes.

This is why Reform are gaining ground. They might be shit but at least they haven't done such heinous things (not yet at least, they haven't been in power to be able to do so).

I don't know if the issue is that labour is losing ground and reform gaining generally, or that its happening on MN?

We know labour are in trouble because Andy Burnham couldnt find a safe seat. There are threads throughout mn about how unhappy people are with Labour.

We saw on the last election that conservatives voters stayed at home, they didnt attract new people and labour, without much enthusiasm from voters, won as a result.

Do people think that can't possibly happen to labour?

Neither the Greens nor Reform have much in the way of policies, they lack in experience, seem to be a one man band and are a leap into the unknown. But what is Labour offering?

Press conference currently underway where Laila Cunningham has been announced as head of Reform London and the party's mayoral candidate. She's given a long speech talking in detail about women's safety and promising to make crime illegal again.

First question from the media is some bloke from the BBC wibbling on about Trump and Greenland.

I think that says something. The candidate has made London's crime wave and women's safety the centrepiece of her pitch to voters, but the legacy media don't see those as real issues, while we can all be outraged about Trump threatening to take over an icy wilderness which is currently Denmark's colonially occupied brown-people territory.

Bloody hell, it's so irrelevant to the post of Mayor of London! Thank goodness I don't pay the TV license or I'd be properly angry!

I've been to London recently, it's definitely less safe than it was two decades ago. I'm definitely not ok with my teenage daughter going there alone.

How did Laila respond? I hope she said as candidate for London Mayor that has sweet fa to do with her!

The BBC seems to really suffer, as an institution, from Trump derangement syndrome to the exclusion of being able to do actual journalism.

They get angry at Trump doing (insert thing, anything) but they DON'T get angry at women being harmed or children being raped (grooming gangs etc). Once you see it you can't unsee it - such skewed and immoral priorities.

I mean apart from anything else, a candidate for the position of Mayor of London has absolutely no influence on what the democratically elected head of state of the USA does.

How can they be this dim? I always think I can't be shocked by the BBC at this point, but here we are again.

What was the reply to the Greenland question? Was it ignored?

It wasn't ignored exactly, but this has become a ritual at Reform pressers. The BBC will ask Farage about something Trump has said or done, to try and get him to either be rude about Trump, or defend an unpopular position of Trump. This is regardless of what the presser is actually about. Farage will find some form of words and try to get back on topic.

It's all a bit silly, but that's how the BBC interprets journalism these days.

What a waste of space they truly are, it's like unpleasant children playing games. As if we don't have enough problems in this country that they could be doing actual journalism about. I suppose they've got rid of all the good journalists like Hannah Barnes so it's only the ID politics obsessed juvenile ones left.

Then they say Reform don't have real fleshed out policies. Well maybe not, but they don't have much of a chance to display whether they do or don't if they're constantly being asked about Trump! Waste of a question, waste of everyone's time. What a farce.

The key point is 1 in 5 understand Reform are the party of the women

The party for women?!
😂
No. WTF

I am not questioning the underlying data, I am questioning the conclusion. If only 20 % of a group is backing something, it would be mathematically correct to say that the group is opposing it, or that the group doesn't really care.

No political party is the party for women at the moment. You are right. Even the Women’s equality party supported men. Fun times.

Sorry, but thinking/pretending Reform UK is any different to UKIP, BF, EDL, BNP, NF, etc is just wilful ignorance. No matter the rebrand, the common root is racism, every time.

& as for 🇺🇸🎃💩🤡; Trump bullies his dissenters( & lately far worse) Farage is a shady millionaire with absolutely no loyalty. He worships him. He’s in the Epstein files multiple times, & is definitely being financed by foreign powers — who have no interest in uniting our country AND want to get rid of our NHS.

Good for you if you can afford private care, but most of us can’t, & for those of us with pre-existing conditions, it would be catastrophic.

If you want to make an informed decision, check out real Reform fact checkers on Insta. Or see Led By Donkeys. https://www.instagram.com/reformarenotyourfriends?igsh=Z3JhZzlxdW83c3dv

What a strange perspective on this place, which generally consists of well-reasoned and evidenced arguments responding to counterfactual and incoherent claims promoted by gender identarians.

But “foaming sea” is a pretty phrase. Perhaps take up writing poetry.

A foaming sea of people pointing out ECtHR judgements and UK legislation and case law apparently.

They certainly aren't the party of human rights, and every bit of ground won by women has depended on the concept of human rights.

Hmm I'm no longer convinced that human rights law in the UK is good for women. KJK thinks public opinion is more important, based on the evidence (Dolatowski, Bryson, White, the derisory sentences handed out to paeodphiles and for violence against women, the ignoring of crimes like death threats and stalking of women, the police being used by male harassers to further their aim etc etc) I'm inclined to think that the government and the courts as well as institutions like the police and social services (in some cases) don't actually treat women and children as if they have human rights at all. The victims of trans identified criminal men are ignored whilst the media falls over itself to accede to their pronoun demands. It's a symptom of a wider issue.

So many institutions are simply ignoring the supreme court judgement and what redress do we have? None as far as I can see.

It's mostly rich men who can afford the courts and all but the most resilient women would be mentally destroyed by the process given the anti-woman bias (hence the phrase 'the process is the punishment') and as seen in the Kemp judgement there's corruption and misogyny at the heart of the judiciary (NALALT - the L being lawyers). Yes, we have some amazing women and men lawyers who do see woman as human and therefore equally deserving of human rights but they are fighting a long, expensive and sometimes seemingly pointless legal battle against the Kemps. Who just make anti-woman shit up and get away with it, seemingly. Again a symptom of an elite/ institutional mindset, no way would this be allowed if the pc being adversely affected was another one.

Yet, public opinion is on our side. Especially within the working class - generally speaking women are seen as humans too. The majority of this country's populace is not keen on following countries that don't give women freedoms and rights, even though that's the direction the institutions are heading in (indecent exposure is basically legal now and enabled by institutions, despite technically, in law, being illegal).

With the grooming gangs, the human rights of the victims has been routinely ignored and human rights law used in some cases to keep the perpetrators in the UK to further terrorise their victims.

Law is made by the victor. It's the law in Afghanistan to treat women worse than animals, doesn't make it right. It was the law in Nazi Germany for the government to seize Jewish assets, again an appalling abuse of power and obviously not right. This is why the Kemp judgement and the total inaction as a result is so worrying. He should at least be suspended by now but he's not - a worrying undermining of accountability, the rule of law and democracy.

Edited to add: It all comes down to what you think 'human rights' means and in some cases human rights law has been twisted to - in reality - harm women's human rights. As in the Kemp judgement the idea that only pure as the snow women who express themselves in a man-approved way are entitled to undress/ change clothes at work without any old man who wants to being present.

How do you translate public opinion into policy without legislation?

It all comes down to what you think 'human rights' means

For me it means that my ability to participate in society isn't hampered by the fact that I can be physically overpowered by most men, or by the consequences of having a female reproductive system.

For instance, I can be financially independent because I can control my fertility and I can't be sacked because I am pregnant.

I have recourse to the courts if I suffer domestic abuse.

None of this is perfect, but without the concept of human rights - that women are equal citizens who have a right to an education, to work, to a life that isn't controlled by men - and that to enable this they need specific rights because of their sex - you have Afghanistan.

My response to SoftBalletShoes ridiculous post would be 'potkettle'

Laws have given women the right to single sex spaces and men the right to be women.

The cynic in me thinks the law is just creating work for itself, by creating unworkable constraints on the public.

Laws should be fair, clear, necessary and achievable.

Governments shouldn't be treating law as something imposed on us, that we cannot change, they should be saying why it benefits us to pretend men can change sex, or that 'women', a word as old as our language, can be redefined by the law.

Stupid, misleading headline 🙄. I wouldn't piss on Reform if they were on fire!

Well, it doesn't have to be about policy, does it? It's all about what's socially acceptable - it used to be the case that the decent men and either exceptionally brave individual or groups of women would step in and stop men entering women's bathrooms or chase off a pervert. That is how. There are still some men who will do this, thankfully. Even though they might end up getting arrested like Glinner.

Now we're at the point with institutions that even though staff at McDonald's reported Wayne Couzens for flashing (an actual crime in law), the police did nothing, leaving him free to kill Sarah Everard shortly afterwards.

You can create an atmosphere where it's more ok to say 'he's a man!' as KJK is doing. You can make it so that more people can speak up in the workplace because they're less scared of a witch hunt. Where men and women defend women's human rights rather than being cowed into silence. Where people aren't as scared of being labelled a bigot or racist and feel free to condemn grooming gangs or men who rape children. What KJK says is this is more likely to effect change (probably including policy change in the longer term) than lawfare and I'm being increasingly convinced by her arguments, after Kemp.

Ultimately and longer term if public opinion is routinely ignored by the ruling Government, we're more likely to get a government that goes along with public opinion including via policy. That might mean Reform.

And let's not forget most of our institutions, including the NHS, have had anti-woman and anti-safeguarding policies for years despite it being pretty clearly illegal in law. Again, back to the Peggie case and Kemp.

Legislation doesn't mean policy will follow. The supreme court judgement showed that.

Well, it doesn't have to be about policy, does it? It's all about what's socially acceptable

As we have learned, managers at NHS Fife believed it was socially acceptable to allow men to use women's changing rooms.

Judge Kemp's opinion was basically that if nobody complained there wasn't a problem.

The only way to assert that Judge Kemp is wrong is through reference to legislation, specifically equality law.

The idea that a woman should have a right to a single sex space, even if nobody else minds, is based on the idea that she has rights, even in a situation where her concerns are in a minority.