Talks solely about female victims of domestic violence, but not the 1/3rd of victims who are male, laughs at male suicides and at the concept of men’s right.
Ideal feminist indeed, and one can only imagine the reaction if a hypothetical man did the same things but in reverse. Only hypothetical, because very difficult to imagine any actual man being as crass and chauvinistic as the ideal feminist.
Incidentally, even her female-centred concerns are very specific. The abused at Rotherham and Rochdale don’t figure very highly in her speeches I would imagine.

I swear Tanya Gold’s writing gets worse with each article. It’s as if she has seven different sentences on the go at at any one time and can’t decide in which order to put them.

She needs to learn that the Labour strategy (she has adopted) of routinely implying that half their potential voters are hateful – and hoping to be elected – is utterly idiotic.
If she fails to realise that relentlessly focussing on women’s issues alienates male voters, then she isn’t bright enough to lead any political organisation.

Sound, integrated and unifying policies might be a first step – for the whole party. An electable political platform, in other words, rather than more personal “brand” as suggested by the somewhat effusive author. Parliament may need changing but that is hardly enough to stir the nation and solve its huge challenges ahead. Rather, does Labour believe in any kind of coherent policy, society as a whole – or anything? Or just power through the aggregation of divided and increasingly toxic interest groups (as under Corbyn – who she served).