Janice Turner on Labour u-turn

...mic drop.

“All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.”

Nailed it.

Chalk and cheese really.

Harman was a human rights lawyer in her 20s at the time when the NCCL was campaigning for equality in the age of consent for gay and straight people. There was generally a debate about the actual appropriate age of consent.
PIE latched onto the latter wanting consent to be reduced to 10. They had support for this from a number of names in the press.

NCCL never recommended anything other than minimum age of 16 but the same for everyone. They separately did support the right of other people to speak (which is what PIE used). Harman wasn't even an MP at this point.

Nandy is in her 40s, a shadow minister experienced across several portfolios and 15 years in active party politics. She knows perfectly well that magic beans don't grow a cervix, she just doesn't care and I'd trust her as far as I could throw her into a tornado.

“The blatant misogyny of largely left-wing men has been displayed in all its glory in this debate in the UK. That behaviour won’t be forgotten easily. Women keep receipts.”

Spot on.

But she’s missed that, on self-ID, what Labour have ditched is the language, not the policy.

Kinnock took Militant down, right on their patch...Kinnock's barnstorming speech at conference in the lion's den ie Liverpool. Right in Derek Hatton's face.

Starmer couldn't even contemplate doing this over the genderists in his party, so deep runs the managerial Left mantra. Just look at recent Unite union declarations, as Stonewall as Stonewall gets.

The Q we all have to consider...if like me you're considering voting Labour, but absolutely sensitive to how they've mishandled the genderwoo over the last few years, you've got to consider, how does Starmer and Streeting (now the defacto deputy, not Rayner, and likely next leader) negotiate their evolved policy thru 4-5 years of Labour being in power...fallouts with MPs and activists, raging rows with unions, public flare ups at conference, daggers drawn with Stonewall.

We have to consider...is Starmer/Streeting genuine in this policy shift? Whether an evolution to this point, or a seismic shift after SNP/Bryson, or simply real politik re opinion polls?

If they are genuine, will they fight for at very least a realistic position? Ie moving further and further away from Self ID? Indeed making the requirements for a GRC tougher and tougher? In other words, triangulating back to the situation we have today?

Will Starmer's tortoise temperament mean that once in power he'll be arguing from a total position of strength, and his natural risk averse and small c conservative attitudes will prevail?

Or worst case scenario, Starmer/Streeting are lying barefaced to us, to swing enough female votes to get power, and then they tack 180 to Self ID/wholesale trans conversion ban, and move in the ways the SNP wanted, and Vox/Podemos in Spain tried to.

As someone proud to have taken the GC course, at some detriment to my career, and who takes my politics and voting very seriously indeed, I have never taken the kind of punt I might do in 2024.

Do I inherently trust Starmer/Streeting on this change back to reality? Am I confident they will shore this up once in power, especially if they have a large majority, to face down internal Left pressure?

On everything else, there's no gap between this long term Tory voter and now wanting Starmer in power. On gender, until recently there's no way I could ever vote Labour.

Things feel different, do I take a punt that could so backfire? Currently this is the sole remaining dissonance I have in my mind in the last decade of trans madness, the tide is turning in almost every area of public life. Will Labour follow the tide? Or con me and millions around the UK, and try to swim against the tide?

Exactly

Many mners do a better job at cutting through and speaking plainly. Why is it so hard?

What is this u turn?

All that has happened is that he's said the words adult human female and clarified that you can buy an adult human female certificate from a doctor.

Yes, good article, thank you for sharing.

'gleefully ignoring and condescending to women' absolutely nails the vibe of his MN 'web chat' (of pre written SPAD responses cut and paste to pre selected questions, carefully saying nothing whatsoever).

I’d call it more play the ball, not the man. This board is pretty quick to laugh at the spectacle of someone tra saying something actually sensible and being piled on for days, but the effect is anyone is terrified to question or recant. I’d say let’s not help the TRAs out here.

That Shonagh Dillon article says it all, really. I'm not holding my breath.

I got the measure of Starmer the day he did the 'web chat' on MN. (Which is still around if anyone wants to read.)

I'd have honestly preferred any of the full on TWAW and women don't need rights nutjob other candidates. At least they were honest about what they thought and wanted to achieve in power, and intended to be themselves with actual integrity.

The difference is that Militant they didn't have 'members' on the front bench or in the House of Lords ( Michael Cashman)

Great article from Shonagh Dillon. A good read for a Sunday morning.

We need a Neil Kinnock moment at the Labour Party conference when he talks them out the Party or it'll be just words. For younger viewers, Neil Kinnock as leader laid into Momentum's predecessor Militant. And it burned brightly. Labour still had a way to go to restore trust back then but it was a Big Moment.

What I am unsure about is whether we are supposed to believe he now thinks differently about biology (maybe found the right page in the GCSE textbook) or if he is saying they had to change their policy because it was unpopular with the public but he still believes some men can have a cervix. Either way I still fear the LP in power will usher in self-id by the back door and not properly protect single sex spaces.

I do agree with the 'golden bridge' etc and that we can now use this as a conversation opener with the LP and get them to be clearer on their plans. However I would feel so much better if there was a proper apology for how they have treated GC MPs and members and some commitments to more 'free speech' on gender issues.

Starmer is completely untrustworthy. He seems to change his ideas more often than he changes his underpants!

And that they either are quite intentionally trying to deceive and con the public into believing that they intend to protect women's rights, when actually they intend to protect men's ability to wreck those rights, with the plan that they'll be in power and it'll be too late when people realise they were cold-bloodedly conned for their vote -

or they honestly have so very little idea of what they're talking about that they haven't realised why what they're saying already does not and cannot ever work in reality.

I'm not sure which is worse.

Interesting piece in The Critic:

https://thecritic.co.uk/keir-starmer-should-apologise-to-women/

I would be happier to cut Labour more slack if it wasn't so patently obvious that all that's happened is that they've seen the move as politically expedient.

I‘m wondering too.

What actually is changing?

Other than a plea that women stop speaking up (or getting ‘grumpy’) dressed up Streeting style this time

So you don't think Surestart was good for women? the maternity acts they bought in? Tax credits for PT workers? (almost always women)

& the Tories who have either removed them or destroying them - all these maternity death scandals we all see? happening under the Tories.

Boris Johnson bought in ULEZ and its been central Govt that has pushed it on councils, just as they have housing targets in areas with limited schools or GP services but then blame labour.

Its also children who are most affected by poor air quality.

So many Con voters on here who are not being genuine.

Labour does not have a good record on women's rights IMO.
Probably only changing now because they realise how unpopular their policies are.
Just like ULEZ.
Don't trust them.

no one is crucifying anyone

and i lose patience with the whole ‘be nice or people will go back to thinking completely stupid things just to spite you’ schtick

What have they changed their minds about?

Not biological sex
Not the spousal exit clause
Not removing the panel for the GRA

They haven't mentioned children

What have they changed their minds about?

How much abuse they are going to ignore? A bit less abuse?

Just remember re Lisa nandy et Al that if you are shouting to crucify anyone who has apparently changed their mind then others will see that and think no point changing their stance! Hold their nose to the grindstone on this but easy on the past attitude. Whatever you think of them, it MUST be acceptable for people to change their minds.