Forum menu
I follow a number of ‘alternative view’ channels on twitter, and a couple of them – in fairness probably all the same source in the end – are saying that there’s another big scandal to break, and that Starmer could be gone as soon as mid of next week. Another one with Lord Alli, apparently. Anyone else seen anything similar?
I can't believe for a moment that Starmer is at any risk of being forced to resign next week. Wardrobegate wasn't a great look for Starmer but it was hardly the beginning of the end for him. It was just a very bad PR exercise which exposed his personal greed for all to see and allowed people to claim "they are all the same". I can't imagine any further revelations mortally wounding him even if they do him no favours.
The only way Starmer might be forced to resign next week imo is if it was revealed that he engaged in clear illegal activity, and there is absolutely no way that the former DPP would be foolish enough to have done that.
I personally don't expect Starmer to last the full five years but I expect his downfall to political rather than scandal related. Someone is probably just shit-stirring, and there is currently a power struggle going on among the party's apparatchiks.
I personally don’t expect Starmer to last the full five years but I expect his downfall to political rather than scandal related.
I would go for he will be standing.
Labour, unlike the tories, are pretty rubbish at getting rid of their leaders outside of a GE loss. It could be argued Blair is an example where it happened but I would argue he could have fought Brown and won but instead looked at the death spiral of votes and decided to beat Enoch Powell and quit before his political career ended in failure.
The fighting is about who can influence him vs who will replace him.
Labour, unlike the tories, are pretty rubbish at getting rid of their leaders outside of a GE loss.
To be fair the Tories have only removed Tory PMs when they have been in extreme political crises and they have been the primary cause, when was the last time that a Labour PM has faced an extreme political crisis for which they were responsible?
Personally I don't see Starmer as being of the same political calibre as say Brown, Blair, Callaghan, or Wilson. I don't think that he will cope well when faced with the inevitable crisis which visits every Prime Minister. I could be wrong but that's my opinion - I don't think that Starmer is a very good politician, there is no evidence of that, just that he has been an extraordinarily lucky one.
when was the last time that a Labour PM has faced an extreme political crisis for which they were responsible?
The obvious example would be Corbyn (lets leave aside whether it meets that criteria and assume it does which it did for the labour mps) where the labour MPs did all they could to give him the boot.
With the tory system it would have been far harder for the party members to save the leader.
I'm not sure why Corbyn would be the obvious example as he was never PM and as you point out Labour, unlike the Tories, are pretty rubbish at getting rid of their leaders outside of a GE loss.
Although I would go further and say that Labour are rubbish at giving their leaders the boot and forcing them to resign full stop. When was the last time that happened?
I think Starmer will probably turn out to be an exception because I personally believe that he is the least gifted postwar Labour PM, but we shall see. I haven't yet seen the cunning and shrewd politician in Starmer, although obviously he might yet emerge and dazzle me.
Although I would go further and say that Labour are rubbish at giving their leaders the boot and forcing them to resign full stop. When was the last time that happened?
So you agree labour arent great at giving their leader the boot regardless of whether they are PM or not?
I am simply suggesting that being PM gives an extra layer of protection vs someone who is leader in opposition. So given that I would argue he is safe unless something really dodgy appears.
So you agree labour arent great at giving their leader the boot regardless of whether they are PM or not?
Oh yeah definitely. And yes obviously being PM massively strengthens Starmer's hand. I just personally think that none of that will be sufficient to save him. He's got to where he is far more through good luck than being a formidable politician. He got a landslide with the smallest share of the vote of any winning PM, how lucky is that ffs?
But maybe I am underestimating him. We shall see.
I would see a risk for Starmer as leader is how fed up his own MPs get of him and his nonsense. As MPs are whipped more and more on things they really don't agree with as Labour MPs (quite a number of them must actually be 'real' Labour?) a movement will build against him or he will simply have to had removed the whip from the majority of his MPs and then not be able to get anything through.
If I was a Labour MP I would be pretty pissed of with him so far and would happily be going against him.
Well here’s a bit of good news for Labour……it looks like Keir Starmer’s meeting with Donald Trump was quite a success and very worthwhile.
We just all need to keep out fingers crossed the great Donald Trump gets elected in US don't we.
You guys do remember Labour just had a landslide victory at the election and have a massive majority in parliament, you're talking as if we're months away from an election and MPs are panicking about their position, like earlier this year with tory MPs?!
“landslide” meaning lowest winning vote share in 100y…
I’ve had enough of silly buggers for a while
Just dip in when you’ve got something to say, say it have a look at what others are saying and leave it at that.
In fairness, that was at me as much as accusations at others (Ernie and Ransos mainly) - this is going to sound Edinburgh, but it was deliberate and self aware of what a prick I was making of myself, but also annoyance at - let's call it 'debating styles' and then leave it at that. I did say before I was frustrated and had had enough of here and then thought **** it, why should I reach a point where I get so frustrated that I'm the one that leaves.
Anyway.
Today's twitter updates lead to
any smoke without fire?
“landslide” meaning lowest winning vote share in 100y…
Even a hundred years ago no party won a UK general with such a small share of the vote as Starmer did in July. It was all purely down to the Tories experiencing their worst ever general election result.
For Labour to repeat that in 2029 will require the Tories to remain as unpopular as they were last July. Hence the claim that Labour could lose the next general election without losing one single vote.
It is a sobering thought to remember that Tony Blair lost nearly 3 million votes in his first five years as Prime Minister. Still, I guess Starmer could eventually prove to be more popular with British voters than Blair was, we shall see.
Today’s twitter updates lead to
It is interesting to see Lord Alli"s views on Syria but it is hardly the lethal blow that will force Starmer to resign next week. I am sure that Starmer will weather this, and not least because Lord Alli's views on Syria will be seen as quite sensible to many people.
Tories experiencing their worst ever general election result.
To be fair to them (what? madness!) both their worst ever result and also Labour's landslide on a thin vote it's because we had a real 4 party proposition this time with RUK taking votes from both C and La
The outcome next time will be decided not just by how well/badly the next 4.75 years turns out, but also whether C reabsorb RUK vote. On the plus side, seems like Farage has made no progress so far having spent most of the time sucking up to Trump while his MPs are going to implode at some point if only with self-anger about something. And C seem to be on track to elect a new leader with the usefulness co-efficient of a helicopter ejector seat, so hopefully they will continue to co-exist and halve their vote shares rather than coalesce.
It is interesting to see Lord Alli”s views on Syria but it is hardly the lethal blow that will force Starmer to resign next week.
In itself maybe not - but there's plenty elsewhere questioning the Starmer and Alli donor-recipient relationship - and Alli is close to Assad - and Assad is close to Putin.... and even if that doesn't actually compromise directly, is it another one of those poor judgement things that so far have plagued and actually threaten to derail the good stuff going in in small g government. Also talk of Sunday paper exposes, and even super injunctions.
I don't want to post too many links in case there is truth, and create probs for STW but (pains me to say it) 'do your own research'
Same guy I think that tried to get his mistress a £100k job and put his babysitter also in the HOL.
I can’t wait to see what the big expose about Starmer is 🙂
But I can’t believe it won’t be something the other guy hasn’t already done(once or twice).
But when Starmer does it we suddenly have to be shocked and he must resign immediately.
On the plus side, seems like Farage has made no progress so far having spent most of the time sucking up to Trump while his MPs are going to implode at some point if only with self-anger about something.
I’m not so sure,I think he will be targeting the young and is playing a long game, he’s the most charismatic and articulate of the current crop and has a tv platform.
Reforms just the vehicle to deposit him on the doorstep of Tory HQ as a Leader in the next election.
So if I've got this right, among other things the Tories set up illegal contracts to steal millions of pounds of tax payer cash to give to their mates.
Starmer has been gifted a few pairs of trousers from a private individual using their own money.
And the conclusion is "they're all the same"?
he’s the most charismatic and articulate of the current crop
This is a wind-up, right? 🙂
"Even a hundred years ago no party won a UK general with such a small share of the vote as Starmer did in July."
1923, minority govt on 30%. So depending on what you mean by "won", it's arguable.
I hope all those crowing about our gerrymandered antidemocratic system generating a majority for labour on a pitiful 33% of the vote are similarly thrilled when the tories win a stonking majority on ~37% next time. And I hope the same people don't ever dare to complain about the pitiful state of politics and govt in our country.
Well here’s a bit of good news for Labour……it looks like Keir Starmer’s meeting with Donald Trump was quite a success and very worthwhile.
We just all need to keep out fingers crossed the great Donald Trump gets elected in US don’t we.
If people can't see the need to try and interact and have some semblance of a relationship with potentially the next President of the United States, then there's a level of naivety and childishness that explains a lot of this thread.
Meeting someone is not the same as wanting them to win.
1923, minority govt on 30%. So depending on what you mean by “won”, it’s arguable.
The definition of "winning" a UK general election is quite clear, to "win" a party has to have a majority of at least one. If no one has a majority then no one has won the general election, as was the case in 2010.
Being the largest party doesn't even guarantee that a party will be in government.
The 34% that Labour received in July was the lowest ever for any party which has won a general election.
404 seats, 167 working majority, i’m sure they’re crying in their cornflakes about vote share
Obviously Labour will be very deeply concerned with how few voters voted Labour, irrespective of the size of the majority. Because they know full well that there is absolutely no guarantee that the peculiarities of first-past-the-post will again save their arses at the next general election.
But when Starmer does it we suddenly have to be shocked and he must resign immediately.
Thats one way of looking at it and certainly the one adopted by the tory rags. There seem to be three different views.
The tory one that Starmer receiving large hand outs is a problem but it was fine for the tories.
The Starmerite one that Starmer receiving large hand outs is fine but it was bad when the tories did it.
Then the view that both are a problem.
The 34% that Labour received in July was the lowest ever for any party which has won a general election.
And for most of the last 100 years we've had a right of centre government on a mainly progressive vote. Our electoral system is fundamentally unsound. This isn't news, but the main parties seem to be quite happy with it.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/717004/general-elections-vote-share-by-party-uk/
So if I’ve got this right, among other things the Tories set up illegal contracts to steal millions of pounds of tax payer cash to give to their mates.
Starmer has been gifted a few pairs of trousers from a private individual using their own money.
And the conclusion is “they’re all the same”?
No you haven't got it right. That is not the comparison being made. The comparison being made is both Tory and Labour party leaders filling their pockets with gifts and freebies from wealthy Lords in a perfectly legal way and within the rules.
Here's a further explanation from sleaze-fighter extraordinaire Martin Bell in the Guardian:
It’s not just the money, it’s the sense of entitlement. That’s the cause of sleaze in UK politics
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/27/money-entitlement-sleaze-uk-politics-commons
How do we know there's a sense of entitlement?
I get the optics and needing to appear to be seen as pure as the driven snow, it shouldn't have happened.
I've given stuff to people I know. I have no idea if they felt entitled to take it off me when they did because of who we are.
However badly Labour have handled it, there's been a few assumptions made by people with no connection to the parties involved and the conversations and actions that seems desperate to assume the worst and drag out the saga.
Do not assume malice when it's just incompetence, or whatever the saying is?
How do we know there’s a sense of entitlement?
Because the geezer who is a widely respected expert on parliamentary sleaze and has done a stint in the House of Commons claims there is?
Personally I can't really challenge Martin Bell's comments in his Guardian article as I haven't even visited the House of Commons.
Because the geezer who is a widely respected expert on parliamentary sleaze and has done a stint in the House of Commons claims there is?
To be fair, that was some time ago.
He may have sources telling him that shady deals have been done for a new suit, but no one seems to have any evidence or if they have, it's not strong enough to make a genuine claim that could be sued on.
There's a presumption of guilt that is probably deserved based on Tory performance. There's also a lot of people for whom "they are all as bad as each other" suits their own narratives, on the right and the left and I'm not seeing anyone asking for proof before rumours become facts
Did you read the actual article? One bit :
Part of the answer to the enduring question of why MPs are so insouciant lies in the nature of the House of Commons itself: the grandeur of the setting, the liveried attendants, the archaic language (“honourable and right honourable members” and even the ex-military title of “honourable and gallant members”) and a consequent sense of entitlement.
Martin Bell claims that despite being elected on an anti-sleaze ticket himself this sense of entitlement even began to affect him and he had to push back.
Yes that was some time ago which is why he was making the point that it hasn't changed much, politicians still have this apparent sense of entitlement. According to Matin Bell calling a politician "the right honourable member" makes them feel special, I bet it does. And I bet they are convinced that they are entitled to all the gifts and freebies they can get their greedy hands on.
https://news.sky.com/story/rosie-duffield-resigns-as-labour-mp-13224014
First resignation, citing "The sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice are off the scale"
Blimey, I certainly didn't expect that ^^ She isn't even left-wing.
Before the general election I did suggest that the bigger the Labour majority the more likely the chance of civil war within Labour, a tiny majority would have maintained discipline, but I certainly didn't expect a resignation within 3 months.
I thought the current battles within the Labour Party where solely based on personalities rather than policies, but this latest development suggests otherwise
So that's tomorrow's headlines sorted then.
From her resignation letter:
"Since the change of government in July, the revelations of hypocrisy have been staggering and increasingly outrageous"
She should have a peek at this thread.
No I was thinking of the wider civil war with Labour insiders briefing against each other
This sort of stuff:
Isn’t Rosie Duffield from the Kate Hoey school of Labour MPs? The ones where you wonder what on earth they’re doing in the Labour Party in the first place?
Isn’t she a bit… erm… what’s the best way to put it… GB News-friendly?
Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out, will you?
Well she was on the right of the party and a couple of years ago she considered defecting to the Tories, which makes her resignation all the more surprising.
You would think that she would have been happy with the direction that Starmer has taken the party and its Tory- friendly policies such as the child benefit cap, no?
Blimey the sausages gaffe isn't doing much to squash the rumours currently circulating.
Yeah that stuff.
I have no idea if Rosie Duffield is homophobic though. Why wasn't she kicked out of the party if that was the case? People have been kicked out for such minor things recently I can't see why homophobia would be tolerated. Although to be fair Duffield is no left-winger so I guess that would have given her some protection.
Edit : Btw is it 'homophobic' to suggest that Starmer might be gay? Genuine question as I don't necessarily make an automatic connection between the two
I have no idea if Rosie Duffield is homophobic though
it wouldn’t take long googling to find out that she is. She’s also rabidly transphobic. Like Kate Hoey before her, it’s difficult to see what she was ever doing in the Labour Party. Her social views seem more in line with Reform
Edit : Btw is it ‘homophobic’ to suggest that Starmer might be gay? Genuine question as I don’t necessarily make an automatic connection between the two
It shouldn’t be, no, but if you read the comments on social media, most of it is (somewhat predictably) pretty toxic and homophobic
I have no idea if Rosie Duffield is homophobic though. Why wasn’t she kicked out of the party if that was the case? People have been kicked out for such minor things recently I can’t see why homophobia would be tolerated. Although to be fair Duffield is no left-winger so I guess that would have given her some protection.
Seems to be pro LGB, anti T
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/09/28/rosie-duffield-labour-mp-trans-views/
Edit : Btw is it ‘homophobic’ to suggest that Starmer might be gay? Genuine question as I don’t necessarily make an automatic connection between the two
In itself and automatically, no, although it is pretty bad to 'out' someone without their permission. That in turn isn't necessarily homophobic, it could genuinely be an error - but then see below.
To specific comments; although by the letter many of them would just about qualify for plausible deniability, I think my radar is well enough tuned (not least by the types of accounts and followers) that the commentary on X questioning Starmer's preferences is far from innocent.
She’s also rabidly transphobic.
Oh come on, the Labour Party had rabidly transphobic candidates in July's general election? Any other dodgy Labour MPs that we should know about?
I suspect that she only became a 'rabidly transphobic' straight after her resignation letter made the headlines today.
Yes I knew that Rosie Duffield had issues with trans women but I don't think diverting the thread onto the rights and wrongs of a completely separate subject is appropriate.
What interests me how less than 3 months ago she was a suitable candidate for the Labour Party and yet today she is denounced as rabidly transphobic and unfit to be a Labour MP.
Nothing to do with her resignation letter? It sounds like the sort of thing that Donald Trump would do....... suddenly discover that someone is a terrible person straight after they have criticised him.
If what you are suggesting about Rosie Duffield is true then Starmer has some explaining to do. I have never known any Labour leader to be so hands-on when it came to the selection of Labour candidates. He didn't hesitate to impose candidates on constituencies if you thought their choice was "unsuitable"
I suspect that she only became a ‘rabidly transphobic’ straight after her resignation letter made the headlines today.
Why would you say that? Her views are well known.
I have never known any Labour leader to be so hands-on when it came to the selection of Labour candidates.
1) you may have decided that Labour candidate selection was in some way centrally directed by the leader of the party in an unusual way… that doesn’t make it true
2) she was a sitting MP… were any sitting MPs (with the party whip) deselected?
I think you should probably do a bit of research on Duffields track record. It’s not difficult. Her views are hardly a secret.
Even more bizarrely, given how socially conservative she is, she was selected as Labour candidate and elected in 2017 under Corbyn
Go figure?
Why would you say that? Her views are well known.
I thought it was very obvious why I said that, because I don't believe that Labour would allow a rabidly transphobic to stand as a candidate. Could I have made it any clearer?
And of course her views were well-known, including obviously to the party leadership. Do you actually remember the trouble that Diane Abbott had getting approved by the leadership as a Labour candidate because she suggested something along the lines of ginger and Jewish people don't face the same level of daily racism which she does? She actually had to apologise for saying that (she shouldn't have) and even then it was only the public outcry which tipped in her favour and she was allowed to stand.
Seriously the hypocrisy and double standards is off the scale on this thread.
Seriously the hypocrisy and double standards is off the scale on this thread.
Yep, you know when tories defend the tory party just because they voted tory - it's that. I would still (just about) rather have the current Labour Party in power than the tories but I will be criticising them in the same way I criticised the tory party.
If/when they do good things I will happily say so. Was hoping Labour would be doing far more good things that the tories but still waiting on that one but only 3 months...
There's a list of things that the new government has done that should be celebrated a few pages back, although I'm eagerly awaiting a lot more.
Duffield is a strange fit, definitely more towards the Reform end of the Tory party than where I'd expect a Labour MP to be.
Not being on Twitter, I'd not heard anything further on Sausage Gate until reading it here. That sounds like the kind of childish ignorant nonsense I might have come out with when I was 12, disappointed the world hasn't moved on in 40 years.
People seem to be forgetting that the Labour party is a broad church of people and there are different aspects of the Left. A lot of traditional Labour voters would be considered economically on the left, because it looked after their interests, whilst being quite socially conservative. Anyone remember the red wall collapse?
It would be interesting to know the real reason behind Rosie Duffields resignation, sure the optics aren't great regarding trousergate but its hardly a resigning issue, it's not going to change anything and to put it bluntly Starmer and team have generally acted within the spirit of the rules even if they've failed to comply with the letter of the rules. Its not Tory level illegality by any stretch, same as 1 bottle of beer and partygate.
I suspect there's a lot more to come out around this, why has she thrown away her seat at the start of the parliamentary term?
But she hasn't thrown her seat away. She can happily sit in it, collecting the money, until the next election.
why has she thrown away her seat at the start of the parliamentary term?
She is keeping her seat as far as I am aware but just resigning from Labour.
Her history with the labour leadership seems to have always been difficult. So I suspect the reasons are as stated built on top of that history.
to put it bluntly Starmer and team have generally acted within the spirit of the rules even if they’ve failed to comply with the letter of the rules
So tories but competent then? The within the "spirit of the rules" isnt that great when they are the rule writers. Most of us operate under far stricter rules when it comes to something which can be considered bribery.
It would be interesting to know the real reason behind Rosie Duffields resignation, sure the optics aren’t great regarding trousergate but its hardly a resigning issue
My thoughts too. However she also cited “cruel and unnecessary” policies. Although she isn't on the left of the party and Starmer's lurch to the right is nothing new. It seems very strange for an MP to resign from a party less than 3 months after a general election, I wonder if it's happened before?
Talking of things which haven't happened before I have never heard of a Conference slump before, only of a Conference bump.
Keir Starmer hits new low in personal popularity ratings
While party leaders hope for a conference bounce as a result of wall-to-wall media coverage, Starmer suffered the reverse effect, as his ratings plunged to their lowest ever level, and well below those of Rishi Sunak.
Oh dear, how did he manage to do that?
Still, I suspect that one of his loyal supporters will be along to say that it doesn't matter, he's got a huge majority, and it's all going to plan. And then add some comment about Corbyn.
Ok bad terminology, she has her seat to the next election (probably) but she's out of the party and all the support mechanisms that provides.
So tories but competent then?
Back to the they're all the same argument. No the Torys quite happily did things that have been shown to be illegal (partygate) and to have been corrupt on an industrial scale. Labour have accepted donations within the current rules, rules written based on the fact that parties are funded through donations. Not the same thing at all.
I take it you’re talking about the rampant homophobia presently doing the rounds on Elons cesspit?
Seen some of Katie Hopkins,it’s like going back to the playground in the early 80’s.
Very childish and a bit disappointing, I thought we’d moved on.
Some perspective is probably required here.
This time yesterday most people had never even heard of Rosie Duffield, She’s been an MP since 2017 and all she’s known for is her prominent views on trans rights, which most people who were aware of found offensive, and a campaign to have Pride flags removed from schools, that the Daily Mail got on board with
Starmer has got plenty to worry about at the moment, but I doubt Rosie Duffield figures as she briefly emerges from backbench obscurity.
I wonder what odds I can get on her being a member of Reform within a week?
*opens betting app*
Not strictly UK Gov but all to do with -gate allegations so I'll put it here.
Someone needs to have a word with Bob Jenrick about glass houses and stones.
Seems from other reading the donation from the UK based fitness company is indeed legit and declared. Less clear is where they get their income from.....
I suspect that she only became a ‘rabidly transphobic’ straight after her resignation letter made the headlines today.
You would be wrong about transphobic (rabidly I'm not certain of).
Some reading by those with a dog in the fight
https://medium.com/@transylvania/rosie-duffield-is-a-transphobic-bigot-ff40aa248c7a
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/09/28/rosie-duffield-labour-mp-trans-views/
but she’s out of the party and all the support mechanisms that provides.
Okay and thats a problem if she doesnt like which direction the party is going, how exactly?
Not the same thing at all
Uh huh, so competent at taking cash but staying inside the rules just as I said.
I love this "within the current rules". They write the rules which are far laxer than the majority of businesses or the civil service etc (which shows just how spectacularly bad the tories were at not being able to stay within them) . You might be happy with someone taking well over a 100k of gifts but anyone sensible would be asking what is being given in return for them. Private Eye notes for example how PwC gave the tories lots of "free"staff and consultancy services in 2008-10 and then did the same for Labour in the last couple of years. Seems to be paying off since they have got plenty of good, paid, contacts from both.
I see it’s the usual attack the person not the message. I guess it’s ok to trouser a load of freebies after all it’s something for nothing in return?
Anyway as you were, back to the squabbling.
Got to giggle a bit when right wingers leave the party - 'good riddance.'
Yet when the right wingers were needed - Centrists relaxed their intangible progressive views. Got to attract them they said.
This Duffield might not be on my political spectrum but she's clearly correct about Starmer's shoddy attributes.
Also, if only Centrists were so on point when it came to inequality and child caps etc. I've noticed the things that bother them are the 'rules' not the implications of an economy that might ruin people's lives.
I wonder what odds I can get on her being a member of Reform within a week?
About the as same then forming the next government if Labour keep helping out.
Yet when the right wingers were needed – Centrists relaxed their intangible progressive views. Got to attract them they said.
I look forward to you showing where us centrists have expressed any willingness to have someone with Duffield's views in the Labour Party.
Because if you can't, you're looking like a sulky child looking for any excuse to lash out.
And I'm not sure any of us on here have supported the 2 child cap, or the blanket withdrawal of tne winter fuel payment or supported inequality. No doubt you'll be providing names and quotes shortly.
@Sandwich that Medium article was an interesting choice given that Lexi Bowen (aka Alexander Secker) was handed a 6 year sentence for rape the day before yesterday.
It’s neither bigoted nor right-wing to believe that women should have the right to single sex spaces.
at the risk of derailing the government thread - abhorrent person, deserves their sentence for what they did. Doesn't mean their article was factually incorrect.
Tell us what you think about Rosie Duffield's views though, as that's peripherally the subject.
abhorrent person, deserves their sentence for what they did. Doesn’t mean their article was factually incorrect.
The article is thin on facts and fat on opinions. The opinions of a convicted rapist. If you feel that the views of a trans woman who used her male body to rape a woman who trusted her should be taken seriously, when discussing the fear women feel in vulnerable situations such as public toilets, domestic violence refuges, and prisons, then that is quite astonishing. Although I guess it fits in with the reoccurring hypocrisy theme on this thread.
I would have thought that Lexi Secker is the very last person who should be offered as a witness or some sort of insightful sage on the topic of women feeling the need to have safe single sex spaces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8rdpdm4r4ro
The article is thin on facts and fat on opinions.
Practically every paragraph contains an assertion (you call it an opinion) and then a link to justify the assertion. Many are simple statements of facts and the links are a matter of record. You can disagree with whether the overall result converts to an overall opinion that Duffield is transphobic, but your above statement is false.
Although I guess it fits in with the reoccurring hypocrisy theme on this thread.
I make no bones that Lexi Secker is a horrible person and deserves everything they are getting. But as a compilation of verifiable facts, irrespective of who compiled them the article is correct. It's not hypocrisy to say that; it's more hypocritical for you to say that is is low on fact because of the speaker.
Irrespective of who wrote it, I firmly believe that Duffield is a transphobe. Do you disagree?
but your above statement is false.
It's my opinion, the article is thin on facts and fat on opinion. Apparently you have a different one.
And it is interesting that in your rebuttal of my comments you completely ignore the obviously most important one :
I would have thought that Lexi Secker is the very last person who should be offered as a witness or some sort of insightful sage on the topic of women feeling the need to have safe single sex spaces.
And it is interesting that in your rebuttal of my comments you completely ignore the obviously most important one...........the topic of women feeling the need to have safe single sex spaces.
The topic is whether Duffield is transphobic, which once again you have failed to answer. Are you going to ignore for days and then do your 'oh that was ages ago' again?
Which of the stated facts in the article are untrue?
Did Duffield not write the linked tweets, or 'like' the tweets by others (Morgan, Linehan, etc.)
Did her LGBT+ staffers resign over her transphobic attitude?
Did she not say she'd rather be arrested than refer to Eddie Izzard by her preferred gender identity?
Have you looked at the clip of her (and other's) responses to Kirsty Blackman reading her constituent's letter?
These are not the actions of a trans ally, by any stretch. They are the actions of a transphobic woman.
FWIW - I AGREE with Duffield on some points - safe spaces for example - and disagree with Secker. I'm no transphobe (I hope). It's a complex subject, and it's fine for you to assert
Lexi Secker is the very last person who should be offered as a witness or some sort of insightful sage on the topic of women feeling the need to have safe single sex spaces.
but at the same time it's also correct to assert that the article is basically factual.
The topic is whether Duffield is transphobic, which once again you have failed to answer. Are you going to ignore for days and then do your ‘oh that was ages ago’ again?
Well you can ask me again in a weeks time and see what I say.
The topic isn't Duffield, she is not the UK government. And I have already answered the question more than once.
And I have already answered the question more than once.
Have you? At best you seem to have skated around, in fact you seem to be more towards not? I'm unclear.
Yes I knew that Rosie Duffield had issues with trans women
I don’t believe that Labour would allow a rabidly transphobic to stand as a candidate.
Had issues with? Can't be because the leadership wouldn't have allowed her to stand?
Make it clear for us, why so reluctant?
Do you think Duffield is transphobic? I'll even offer you a milder alternative (label the act not the person) - has on several occasions expressed transphobic views, and associates with transphobic groups and individuals (eg: Get the L out, LGB Alliance, Rowling, Linehan)
Why do you appear to be obsessed with my opinions Jonv?
I care very little about Rosie Duffield, including what she is and what she isn't. Why do you believe that I should have an opinion about her and why do you care so much what it is?
How about moving the discussion back onto the subject of the UK government?
Of course Duffield is transphobic so why was someone openly transphobic and anti LBGT+ in general allowed to be in Labour party for so long? What other MPs have they got that shouldn't be Labour MPs?
Can't really use the "only 3 months" card on this one.