Starmer rowing back on self ID - what do we think?

You can say what you like.

I am also allowed to comment on what you post, especially when you post incorrect information.

Stating that the policy originated with the Tories is factual, the insinuation they still support this is not, nor that a vote for Labour is one that helps bury self id.

I'm still waiting for trantrums from the labour tras, until that happens and he faces them down sfaic nothing has changed.

Does it really matter who started this policy as surely its more important who recognises that this policy is not fit for purpose and actually harms 50% of the population. Starmer thinks its fine. Its not.

Oh, are we not allowed to say it was a Tory policy now? Because it was. This whole shitshow happened under and because of the Tories.

I'm delighted the Conservatives and other parties eventually learnt from what happened to Nichola Sturgeon. It's a shame it took so long.

It’s not those that vote Labour no matter what they need to convince anyway.

It’s the people who likely voted for Johnson that they don’t want to lose.

It’s also Starmer not getting his arse handed to him as Sturgeon did, he knows it hence all the weak waffle

It's not a Tory policy though.

It was a Tory policy under May and has been utterly squashed under Sunak.

As stands today, the Tories are the only mainstream party who are committed to upholding the EA and not introducing self id and have said so unequivocally.

Stating that it's a Tory policy is just another "look squirrel" post.

I've spent the last 5 years ruining my ballot because I will not vote Labour but struggle to vote Tory.

This time....well I'm done. If it looks like a tight race in my constituency I'll tick the blue box for the first time in my life and I'll lose no sleep about that at all.

Good stuff. Hopefully the Tory policy of Self ID will die with the party at the next GE.

I've just checked Keir Starmers twitter, the Labour Party twitter account and there is no mention of this anywhere. Ellie Reeves has also not posted her disastrous interview with JHB despite her posting all her other media appearances.

I think he's lying.

@Proudofitbabe absolutely. This is also the demographic that Corbyn was sure he’d captured… then there was a landslide in the opposite direction

Himalayanclouds and yet ironically this issue is going to be the one thing that keeps him out of power. Because to my original point - most don't actually agree with it.

I do agree the youth are more likely to sympathize with GRA stuff - but as is often the case in politics I'd also bet there are plenty of students out there, nodding and smiling in Halls and classrooms purely for appearance's sake, but taking a totally different stance in the privacy of the voting stall. Hope so anyway!

Cross post, absolutely agree

What would Labour do to fix any of that? Their economic focus, as repeatedly stated by Rachel Reeves, is on slashing welfare and minimum wage rise projections would be slower than under the Tories. The Labour many people seem to believe in is just a fairy tale. Saying that, I wouldn't vote Tory either.

I look at it that he would rather woo the kids than not get in to power, then he can address the rights of women

This is absolutely NOT his intention. He’s got no interest in addressing the rights of women. As PP said, the shadow minister for domestic violence read out a man’s name in the list of women killed by men in the last 12 months. Lisa Nandy is worse. The issue is bigger than him and it’s not going anywhere.

I do see that Proudofitbabe and I am sympathetic to a lot of your post but he does have to appeal to young voters who are more susceptible to GRA arguments.

This however is the big miscalculation any of the parties dabbling in self id have made (including the Tories under May).

They've assumed this policy is an overall net vote winner. It's not.

If the LP dropped self id, the younger left wing voters are not going to start voting blue.

You may lose a few votes to the Lib Dem's, but so what? In the grand scheme of being in govt that's irrelevant.

By supporting self id on the other hand you will lose swathes of support, especially from women but also from people who just think the whole thing is nuts and are not going to vote for a party whose representatives look increasingly bonkers and out of touch when interviewed by referring to a male rapist as "she".

I still think what happened in Scotland has not really fully sunk in.

The SNP and NS had levels of support the LP can only dream of from a quite diverse political base that united around the issue of independence.

The fact that gender reform was a significant issue in her downfall speaks volumes about the toxicity of this as a policy for most voters.

KS's problem in renouncing self id isn't because it's the right thing to do to or to win more votes, it's that he's dealing with a party of MP's, grassroots membership and trade unions who are all captured by this ideology and he can't afford to piss them off or he might not be leader for much longer.

That's why I can't trust the LP. Whatever KS says, he's just one person and behind him are legions of people putting pressure on him to implement self id because as a party it's consumed by an arrogance that it's their job to educate the electorate rather than represent them.

By contrast the Tory membership cares about one thing. Winning. So a u-turn on self id was a no brainer when they finally cottoned on they'd lose more votes than they would gain over this issue.

The LP need to realise that if they want to be in power they need to stop dictating/educating the electorate and start from a position of listening to them.

I look at it that he would rather woo the kids than not get in to power, then he can address the rights of women.

And it’s depressing, but I have young adult dds at university and I don’t know any of their circle who don’t support trans rights. It’s a source of huge conflict in our home.

ballot paper

Epicchaos

You can ask for all of that you like but unless people like starmer and other politicians have a firm grasp of reality and admit what a woman is and what a woman is not ( a male! ) then it's meaningless

Again that’s a very good point, one I agree with, but equally doesn’t life itself become pretty intolerable and meaningless if women can’t heat their homes or pay for food for their dc or get a gp appointment or call an ambulance? I mean people are being denied basic human dignity in many of the most deprived areas of the uk, not to mention in the corridors of our A & E departments. To my mind, when I have a ballot in my hand, I have to address those issues first and GRA rights second. It’s not a good choice to have to make.

Don’t trust them as far as I could throw them - some dreadful misogynists in their ranks, both within parliament and without.

They’ll tone it all down until they get in and then they’ll be kicking women straight under the bus.

Not a hope in hell of winning my vote back while they allow the the likes of Lloyd Russell Misogyny to spout his bile in their name.

Labour. 1/10. Must try harder.

he does have to appeal to young voters who are more susceptible to GRA arguments

I've get that, but to me it falls into the "unacceptable" rationale category, for 2 reasons:

1. He doesn't believe it, but is prepared to say it to woo 'the kids'

1. He'd rather woo the kids than uphold the rights of women

I would also have thought that the youth would be less influenced by TRAs if the Left had upheld even a vaguely feminist stance on the issue.

I also think young people who do NOT subscribe to gender ideology (there will be plenty of them) will be least able to speak up, because nobody else does.

She couldn’t even back up her position, that’s the worst thing; they don’t actually have any thoughts or process behind it, they’ve just sold women up the river to be liberal and trendy and appeal to what they think matters the most, and brainwashed themselves in the process.

Is he only just beginning to get a sense of why huge swathes of women won't be voting Labour this time and for the foreseeable. Tut tut Keir, I would have expected someone with your education and career to have, yiu know, actually thought it through.

It makes him look pathetic actually. "Oh dear, Nicola Sturgeon made herself very unpopular over this, I'd better release some meaningless soundbite so people don't hate me".

Absolutely agree. It’s top of my agenda.

Yet this is the leader of the party?
Someone spineless and stupid and yet the labour party want him to run the country. Seems like they all think with the one braincell but not all at the same time.

Why would I want such a person to run the country, how could I trust them to run the country. Even taking out womens rights (let's be honest no party cares about such petty things) he still is stupid and cowardly, as proved by his own self, time after time.
He has/the party has no answers to the other big issues of today. No coherent plan, how can I trust that man or that party to do what's best (least worst) for the country.
I've met him by the way, he isnt a stupid man, but he just never thinks about women, we are the service class to him.

I do see that Proudofitbabe and I am sympathetic to a lot of your post but he does have to appeal to young voters who are more susceptible to GRA arguments.

He’s cautious. That’s normal for a lawyer. He knows this issue is very polarising and and yes he is deliberately trying to tip toe through the debate. Maybe it is yellow bellied of him. Maybe it’s pragmatic. Once he has five years in power stretching ahead of him, he can then engage more fully. Atm, he is trying to be all things to all people to get in to power

I'd understand that stance, if only it WERE a genuinely polarizing issue. Relatively very, very few people are trans, and the average voter doesn't want to see men in women's spaces. Hardly anyone believes that anyone besides women have cervixes.

It's actually a really simple one which would blow over, if only people like him had been prepared to say what most think. By being so "cautious" he's breathed oxygen into what should be a non-debate, and massively alienated much of his voter base. It's staggering really, and at this point there is no explanation that would satisfy me.