Starmer tw don't have the right to use women only toilets

Reading these, it would not appear he's lacking in understanding. Not if he's managed the legal achievements set out:

How the young Keir Starmer made his name as a ‘radical’ barrister.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/3cf0e2ab-99b0-458b-a2a9-e42212e2c6b5?shareToken=1a72676a97fc651bbbf8caf5d1fc6c6ee_

How Keir Starmer left Blair’s policy on terror in disarray.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/fc16fab1-bf15-4ca9-8a56-45072ea11df0?shareToken=b744795362dfd6cad8035274efd1eaa00_

Again I wouldn't care about whether he was being sincere as long as he'd be forced to see through any commitments he might make - and I agree there might be an issue over anything that wasn't in the manifesto. Michael Foot was arguably as sincere and as decent a politician as you could ever hope to find and look how that ended.

But at this stage the commitment has to be to amend the legislation before I will start to listen. I'm not interested in anything else.

Even if it’s to appease some voters it hasn’t been said how this will happen

There is no legislative change

So is Starmer lying or lacking understanding?

True, but it's a very last-minute pseudo pivot that screams panic in the ranks and hence completely insincere.

No. I would like to know the answer to this question.

Grubbing for votes is what politicians do the world over. I don't really care why he's doing it. I do care about being able to hold him to whatever he says though, and so I take the points (on the previous page) about how the HOL might view any fresh commitments made after the manifesto.

Has any politician ever (not just Labour) ever said exactly what it is that a GRC does, and what advantages a man with a GRC has over a man who hasn't got one?

The only thing that is clear is that Starmer is shamelessly grubbing for votes as he has belatedly realised that biological women are a core chunk of his potential voters. While desperately trying not to piss off his special people, who he will mollify on Friday by returning to his usual word soup.

We see you.

Personally, I would love to know exactly what I’m voting for if I give my x to Labour. At the moment Starmer has espoused almost every possible stance on this issue, (intentionally I think) allowing space for a variety of interpretations. If that’s not slippery, I’m not sure what is?

Regardless of all the twaddle KS speaks over the next few days, as I understand it, a vote for labour would be a vote to implement the mandate actually set out in their written manifesto, not the random utterances he mentions to a reporter (especially when such utterances appear to contradict their written manifesto).

The manifesto will make GRCs much easier to obtain, but KS's latest comments suggest that a GRC won't actually do much, so the two positions are largely contradictory (or at least meaningless).

The only part of this that a vote for labour would mandate would be that GRCs will be easier to obtain, though.

KS's new random comments as to how GRCs should be interpreted won't be considered by the HoL when they are considering the mandated amendments to the GRA set out in labour's manifesto, so just because he's changed his tune at the last minute as to how a GRC should work, a vote for labour wouldn't be interpreted as a vote for this one latest comment; it would be a vote for labour's actual written manifesto.

But I'd want to know what clarity he'd want. What does he think is unclear? Why? Who's in, who's out?

He's been so slippery that this must be resolutely clear.

Even then, the manifesto says what it says. And the Salisbury Convention means we'd have either total self-ID or much further weakening of the current situation. But boosted by political support and a message that women and children don't matter.

The game changer for me would be something along the lines of:
'My personal views aren't really the issue here. The real issue is that the Equality Act is not sufficiently clear about the meaning of 'sex' or 'single sex spaces'. If I am elected, I will clarify this.'

You're leaving it mighty late, Keir but it's not over till it's over. You've still got time.

Labour will only take notice if they get fewer votes than they expected from reading the polls, especially in seats where that matters.

Sorry, no, Labour may take notice etc.

You're easily pleased. The rest of us are more cynical.

'As PPs have said, I expect his view will have ‘moved on’ by July 5th.'

I sadly agree with this too. Politicians spouting 'twaddle' (women can have penises, mixed sex 'gender belief ' spaces that replace single sex are 'working well' even though it leaves women totally excluded, men can 'grow ' a cervix and women who want privacy, dignity and safety from men whatever men's gender beliefs are bigots), means they will lie about anything.

But the fact that's in the Guardian is a good thing, right? Too little, too late, etc, but still.

Hm. There is the matter of the paying gig.

Holy moly.

Then write to your MP and tell them that your vote has been decided by this, and let them know that we expect concrete action to follow, promptly.

I know, he's voting Green. I wonder if he will resign from the Guardian.

LOJ has given up on Labour.

Wonder what he'll do about the Graun, given his paying gig there.

Food for thought indeed.

It doesn’t mean anything though?

How would it happen if there’s no legislative change?

Can't wait for the reaction from LOJ. 🤣

That’s what he’s after.