The Times Lead Story - Labour Set To Annihilate Women's Rights

I agree with this. There's a lot of downsides to a 2nd elected chamber and yes I could see it ending up akin to the US House/Senate with accompanying issues.

One of the benefits of the HoL is that peers are more likely to be true to what they believe in because they don't have to campaign for their seats or please an electorate.

It's not a perfect system but it does have benefits that could turn out to be disastrous if removed.

I used to favour an elected HOL but now think that the current set up is preferable. However it needs to be greatly reduced in size - perhaps by half -and there should be much heavier scrutiny of those appointed. For a start, they should be people who have demonstrably contributed to the greater good of the country, have particular and valuable expertise, and being affiliated to a political party or high up in the civil service should be a bar to be overcome rather than an advantage.

The idea of an elected second chamber has always struck me as the Commons voting for an early Christmas. If the Lords are elected, I guess the reasoning goes, then they are under the control of the government, because they can have their seat taken away. I reason that if the second chamber is elected it will challenge the Commons for supremacy, and it is not at all clear which would win. Historically the second chamber was the more powerful - there is no reason whatsover why it might not become so again, through electoral gains etc. And what does the government do if the newly elected Lords has the Opposition in the majority - we see the effects of this in the US, where a Democratic President has to continually fight the House and Senate, ditto a Republican. It leads to nothing getting done. Part of the point of democracy is that change should be slow, but it is not meant to stop any change. Labour has already taken a coach and horses through the constitution, giving us a Scotland that is forever challenging Westminster and is in danger of breaking the Union. And Labour want to repeat this in the Other Place?

Of course, I should have realised. It is coercion to say something false.

You can't cross it out when the form is online.

And it's pretty despicable Cassie to have used my resources when you felt they were useful to you, but not to repay the favour by listening to trans widows about what we need.

Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.

My evil agenda of wanting trans widows to keep the rights they currently have.

Dear God Cherie Blair it’s Sex not Gender!

www.thetimes.com/article/dc8636bd-f1a4-43c5-8869-f6476d1f1523?shareToken=0ff50b0464ccfde773d0418711500be3

I think you'll find it here @TempestTost. I may have been mistaken about elected though, perhaps I'm stuck in the Blair years?
https://labour.org.uk/change/serving-the-country/
Scroll down the page until you reach Constitutional Reform.

Although Labour recognises the good work of many peers who scrutinise the government and improve the quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the second chamber of Parliament has become too big.
The next Labour government will therefore bring about an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be required to retire from the House of Lords

Labour is committed to replacing the House of Lords with an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations. Labour will consult on proposals, seeking the input of the British public on how politics can best serve them.

Honestly if I ever thought they would seriously accomplish that I would never consider voting for them, even if I really liked my local candidate.

Labour don't want a HofL
Their policy was/is to have a second elected chamber, although this won't be done in the first term of a Labour Government.
I think they intend to set a retirement age of 80.

Control the Lords by stacking the house with yesmen and there's no danger of sanity or normality interfering with you and what you wish to inflict on the British public. If we've learned anything in the past ten years, particularly watching the SNP put their underpants on their heads and go 'wibble', it's that an independent secondary house is essential. And it needs to be anyone but politicians.

The reason the British public is so fucked off and walking around in circles going 'I don't know who to vote for because I don't want any of them' is the bloody awful calibre of politicians and their despising of democracy, anyone who isn't 'one of them' with the right ivory tower views, and their despising of voters.

The HoL is the layer of protection Labour will want rid of.

That doesn’t make sense. Why pack it out with more people you’re then going to boot out? None of this policy augurs well.

Labour good for women and women's rights? Ah but not those women, or those ones and definitely not those ones but maybe those ones over there, yay!

Anyone who thinks Labour give a flying fuck about women and women's rights is utterly deluded.

Excellent post UpThePankhurst. Male supremacism it is, there is only one reason TRAs want this clause removed and that is so they can exert power and control over their wives and Labour are more than happy to enable them to do just that.

Anyone supporting the legal right of a man to coercively prevent his wife having the option of leaving the marriage when he unilaterally changes the entire terms of the contract she consented to, and is effectively no longer being the person she married to the point of being called 'dead named'? When his wife wishing to end the marriage at this point has no real effect on him at all, but a massive one on her and her ability to escape him and a situation she no longer consents to?

Either has no real idea of what they're talking about and hasn't understood it, or is an extreme misogynist.

This is embedding male supremacism in law. That men have rights to overturn women's rights and consent in some circumstances. That men matter in ways women don't, and have superior rights to women and power over women.

Fgs think of the marital rape clause. Seriously. How short a step is it to go from 'I don't agree you should have a right or means to leave this relationship with me while I do this to you because it conflicts with my wishes and needs' to 'I don't agree you should have a right or means to deny your body to me because it conflicts with my wishes and needs'?

I posted this on the Bridget Phillipson thread and I’m posting it here cos I think it’s relevant to this discussion too:

A tweet from STILLTish:

’This case is a man who was thrice married, had 7 kids, spent time in Jail for obtaining explosives with intent to endanger life. A single judge granted him a gender recognition certificate.'

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2019/10/10/gender-recognition-certificates/

It's shit, but to me there's nothing about transition that's different to all the other ways some men lie, cheat and disguise parts of themselves in a marriage.

Except that it’s been explained over and over again that, with a GRC, the transitioner becomes a different person in law, and the actual marriage contract is changed.

Lying, cheating and other such unacceptable and abusive behaviours don’t do that.

It's an irregular verb.

Don't twist my words to suit your agenda.

Oh lordy.

Hang on, Cassie (AdamRyan), who has spent weeks telling us all that we should unequivocally support Labour, is now expressing a level of distrust? Cassie you’ve been here too long, you’ll go native and become a far-right bigot!

@CassieMaddox

Well, maybe wives should be able to get a religiously recognised annulment if their husband turns out to be a prostitute-using wife-beater: why don't you argue for that? Instead of arguing for the removal of rights which trans widows obviously find useful. Whose side are you on? Apparently not women, particularly women with the misfortune to be abused simultaneously by their husbands and by one of our lovely woman-hating world religions.

But CassieMaddox a man using prostitutes or turning out to be an arsehole doesn't alter his legal personality under the law - he is still the same legal entity even if he's completely changed his behaviour.

This is about entering into a contract with one legal entity and that legal entity ceasing to exist and another fundamentally different legal entity being substituted as a party to the contract, and the other party still being bound by the original contract.

If you found your husband was a habitual user of prostitutes and had been since you were married, you'd have to divorce. To me that's a similar level of "lack of consent".

I have every sympathy with women not wanting to be in a legally same aex marriage. I'm less sympathetic about the "altered marriage" piece - lots of women have been there. It's shit, but to me there's nothing about transition that's different to all the other ways some men lie, cheat and disguise parts of themselves in a marriage. 2 years is long enough to get out of it.

The truth is we have no idea what Labour are proposing regarding telling the spouse when a GRC is applied for, or if annulment will be an option. I trust them a lot less after the last few days. But this is the sort of detail to bring up in the consultation.

Karmer keeps talking about 'respect' but he doesn't respect my sex.

He's been sitting on the fence for so long he must have a zillion splinters in his arse.