Starmer and the Labour Party Really Cannot Read the Room

Ah, rabbit-tail butt-plug.

I thought he looked a bit puffy and slightly queasy - that'll be why, I guess.

Apologies, I should have commented more on what he was saying... except it was hard to listen. I’m outside the UK and I think this might be the first time I’ve heard him give a speech. It was curiously flat and toneless: utterly lacking in passion.

I know he’s long out of the game, but I remember Tony Blair in his heyday and there is no comparison at all. Where’s the spark? Where’s the fire? Where’s the feeling that he’s speaking about something and really means it?

So sad. I hoped he’d be better, even if I think he’s wholly wrong about this.

Breathe Starmer has one of the finest legal minds of his generation. I think we can probably accept he's a deep thinker.

However, I'm not sure he's a politicsl genius. And it's quite possible that you can think too deeply, and not have enough of that flair for sending a zeitgeist and communicating it with an energy that captures people. And I fear that's where Keir Starmer is.

I really think he needs to be bold. He needs to risk alienating the members that are keeping Lsbour at a distance from the vast numbers of people who aren't members.

I think he has to risk actually pissing off a lot of the members.

There is a very pragmatic group in the Labour Party that is extremely aware that unlimited self-id is not a vote-winner.

They need to let starmer know, because he seems to think differently.

There is a very pragmatic group in the Labour Party that is extremely aware that unlimited self-id is not a vote-winner.

Where? Is it vocal?

Bottom line, I don't trust Starmer now.

Well, the current Labour position is that there needs to be consultation over self-id.

Which there does.

I just can't see self-id coming in now without exemptions. Because - as we all know - without exemptions, it runs straight into existing EA legislation.

I'm not saying, 'Relax. It'll all be fine.' I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that Starmer is miles from endorsing unlimited self-id in that clip.

And I think now is the time to join (or re-join) Labour and push.

There is a very pragmatic group in the Labour Party that is extremely aware that unlimited self-id is not a vote-winner.

Late to the thread and just dropping in to ask - is that a rabbits foot buttonhole he has?

When he says: reform GRA to introduce self-declaration, that removes all barriers and externally imposed criteria. If on the basis of self-declaration someone can obtain a GRC and a new birth certificate, then that cohort of 130 prisoners currently in the male estate can, on the basis of self-declaration, obtain the right to be housed in the female estate, be recorded in all data as women and thus evade risk ax for sexual re-offending.

I agree that he knows exactly what the ramifications of this are for prisons. In fact, I know he knows because I know he has been told and who told him.

So, we can conclude either that he is confident of never getting into power, so he can say whatever he likes without risk. Or (and quite why he thinks that saying this will advance him along the path to power) the safety of women in prison is price that is worth paying.

I’m not as optimistic as some of the PPs. Starmer is a massive disappointment. He either doesn’t get the issues and is spouting words fed to him by Stonewall or one of their cronies in Labour, or he does get it and doesn’t care because it’s only women.

Personally, I think he’s not a deep thinker and just sees this as a black and white issue - that is, you’re either For this in all it extremeness, if that’s the right word, or you’re an evil transphobe. Nothing will persuade him. Sadly I’ve seen far too many supposedly intelligent people think like that, particularly men (I wonder why??).

Sorry, but I’m never going to vote Labour or Green or for any of them again while they refuse to listen and refuse to respect my sex and are happy to shit all over half the population.

We know there is an issue with the current situation - the medical route was painful, long and arduous.

Are you talking about the current process to get a GRC, if so it really isn't that difficult, GRCs are given to men with histories of sexual offending and deception. It's far harder to get disability benefits in the UK. If your talking about SRS, that has never been a requirement for a GRC.

All he's said is that he is supportive of trans rights and, generally, supportive of self-id

But will all know what that will mean in practice, demands that any male with a GRC is allowed into single sex spaces.

Fool me once shame on you, and all that.

Best place to grow up in or grow old in.... unless you are an adult human female then KS couldn't give a flying fuck about you.

I have to say I agree with pp who say stay in labour if you're there. Use your voice.

The green vote described above was awful; I gave my proxy vote but the whole thing was a farce as anyone in the Green Party could self id as female and vote for the green women. So loads of blokes did.

I joined the greens about a year ago and I'm glad I did. I have heard of certain long standing members who have subsequently been listening and watching and are making real efforts to change this shit from the inside.

Won't happen over night. But will with more members who want to make their voice heard.

Unfortunately I don't think we will topple the tories for years yet.

There was nothing in his statement to support the idea that he 'gets it' about self ID, and realises it can't work alongside sex based rights.

Plus, if Labour adopt self-id without limits - that's just waving goodbye to government.

I admire your optimism but I'm not a gambler so I won't be giving labour the opportunity to screw women over in government.

It's ... frustrating.

I fear you may well be right about that, Red.

A lot of us are very awake to all this. I suspect Starmer is one of them. But it's going to take a hell of a lot to pull the ship back on course. 🤷‍♀️

You see, I just don't think that is Starmer's position on self-I'd, KeepPrisons.

I'm convinced he knows there will have to be limitations.

Apart from anything else, there would be a raft of legal cases.

Plus, if Labour adopt self-id without limits - that's just waving goodbye to government.

You know it, I know it, Starmer certainly knows it.

As I keep saying, there is nothing in that statement that suggests all-out self-id is Starmer's position.

Indeed, it's carefully crafted not to say that.

Starmer won't be the one to fix it.

It will be someone from the north.

We know there is an issue with the current situation - the medical route was painful, long and arduous.

I don't understand your point. If you intend to have SRS it will be long, painful and arduous no matter how simply the paperwork becomes.

@Thelnebriati

If everyone leans in, they'll just have to listen!

I'm leaning in for sure....by putting my faith in Liz Truss.

If Starmer gets his way and self-ID goes through, on the basis of the 2019 data on transgender prisoners from the MoJ, there will be 130 additional prisoners of the male sex transferred to the female estate. This will be enough for at least 10 in each women's prison.

Again, going from the MoJ data, 57% of these have at least 1 conviction for sexual offences.

However, none will be risk assessed for sexual reoffending because the OASys Sexual Reoffender Predictor is only used with men and can't be used with women.

When we are told that. this cohort of prisoners is thoroughly risk assessed such that female offenders are kept safe, it is simply not true.