Lib Dem conference big vote on supporting women's rights tomorrow

Random.

James Holt, the LibDems new political director as of a few months ago comes from eight years of working for Harry and Meghan, much of it in California. .

That's strange there is another MRP poll out today, conducted on behalf of Restore!

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_vipoll_20260924.html

That’s fascinating.

37% of constituencies are decided by margins of five points or less in our central estimate,

Oof.

The big YouGov MRP poll is out(there will be others from other polling companies over the next month or so). Lots of caveats, of course, but their central projection shows Lab unable to form a majority without both the LDs and one of the other smaller parties. As policy positions stand that makes it plausible that potential coalition partners insist on changes to EA 2010 as the price of support. LDs would be pulled that way by GPEW and SNP (the least likely coalition partner, I think), perhaps less so by PC.

Not a reassuring prospect and a reason to be very careful about crossing your fingers and supporting the LDs in a Westminster election, assuming they won't get a chance to meddle with equality law because Lab leaders aren't interested in spending political capital on such a divisive issue.

We wrote to our local Lib Dem councillors to tell them we won't be voting for them in the future. I think this issue out weighs any local nimby'ism for me.

Here's the email if anyone wants to borrow it

Notice of withdrawn voter support for Liberal Democrat candidates

Dear Councillors,
I am writing to you as a constituent in your ward to formally state that I, along with members of my household, (3 adult voters) will no longer be voting for Liberal Democrat candidates in future elections.
This decision follows deep concerns regarding the party’s current direction on sex and gender issues. I believe the party's platform has become heavily influenced by trans activism at the expense of women's rights, sex-based protections, and single-sex spaces.
As local representatives, it is important that you understand why you are losing support within the community. I no longer feel that the Liberal Democrats represent the interests or safety of women.
Yours sincerely,

I'm still hopeful that within a couple of years the wheels will have come off the Reform bus and that Kemi will be able to address, and draw more attention to, Burnham's shortcomings.

I personally don't like the idea of Proportional Representation because unstable coalitions of smaller and more extremist parties are more likely, and as you suggest they don't accurately reflect the popular vote.

Its here. Updated weekly.

https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/voting-intention-trackers/

But then labour service the unions and their agendas, the conservatives service industries, the Lib Dem’s service large pharmaceutical companies and the green party support the Muslim community and trans rights organisations . That’s if we’re looking at their biggest donors, which is I think what you were referring to?

I don't understand your reply. And obvious transwoman is when its clearly a man. That just proves they are a man. You suggesting that its ok for obvious transwomen to use the women's toilet suggests that anyone who is obviously a man should be admitted. So by your logic all men should be allowed in. I am confused. Confusion isn't neccessary. No male, whether they look like a man, woman or one of the very small number of those who its not clear are not allowed in. Male equals no entry.

@RedToothBrush Any chance of a link to the raw data or report that graph you posted is from? I'd quite like to take a more detailed look - especially at the pattern over time.

But have to say dont quite understand the last part of the graph.

Is it treating men as the "norm" ie 7% more male votes for Labour, 3 more for Reform, but 4% less for the Conservatives that women?

Speaking for myself, I wouldnt want to vote for a party where the majoroty of the potential cabinet are complete unknowns. At least labour and conservative have experienced MPs.

Lots of men probably aren't as cautious.

It might benefit Barnham to lose a few MP, but a coalition wouldn't be good. Ive heard parties need a solid 35% to risk an early election.

I know. It's shocked me too.

In terms of how this translates to seats, Labour couldn't form a majority but could form a coalition government. The Conservatives however are unlikely to be able to form a coalition government even with Reform.

So as it stands it looks like a left wing coalition would likely be the next government but this doesn't really reflect the popular vote well.

There is, of course, a very long time before the next general election I suspect. All this talk of Burnham calling an early election is nuts precisely because he'd lose the large majority he has now.

I am slightly surprised to see the Conservatives apparently being so popular with women, and then followed by Labour.

And that Reform comes 3rd with women, but second with men!

But have to say dont quite understand the last part of the graph.

But good to see the greens second last only to Restore!

That’s really great. Go on Kemi.

Interesting polling today.

In recent years the Labour vote has been solid due to a high percentage of female voters. The swing vote being in the 35 - 60 range I believe.

But this polling suggests something has shifted and changed, possibly because we are now seeing a five party system emerging.

Males: Labour + LD + Green = 47%
Females: Labour + LD + Green = 44%

But the shift here ISN'T to the far right like some want to make out. It's to the centrist right.

This is a significant shift - a majority of women have been the core of the left vote for a number of years.

Its fascinating and it's surprised me.

The big question has to be 'why?'

“Lib Dems used to be the sensible voice in the centre, now they are chasing the populist left. I resigned my membership long ago and I won't be returning any time soon.”

Same.

Accept I gave the shortened version re GRC, but you do have to sign a document saying you agree that you will live as your new "sex" for live.

Which for all the gender fluids, non binaries, etc. means they are outside of that characteristic.

Unless Self Identity is added to the EA, and if so would that also apply to Race, Disability.

On what grounds would sex be the only characteristic you can identify into?

Oh no, did mine not make into the echo chamber, well colour me surprised.

If everyone acknowledges men with PC of GR or with a GRC haven't changed sex, and services are provided by sex, and gender is not sex - why can't they use the correct sex facilities?

If everyone understands its gender that is transitioned not sex, why is everyone aware of how distressed these male men would be in the male facilities, have male passports or be refered to as Mr, a long established sex title.

These men want to be in the women's space but the compromise is to give them other spaces away from the other male people. But why, if its so clear that gender and sex are different?

The GRA and PC of GR do confuse sex and gender. From the EqA: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." Also, a man with a GRC can have a female birth certificate.

I am well aware of the SC, and the GRC (its not a pathway to surgery by the way iwanttoretire).

What im saying is, its understandable that halfwit politicians and libdem party faithful think that some sort of sex changed has happened or spaces are gendered - why else would these men need to be away from other men?

The GRA and the PC of GR are bonkers. They are not nothing, they are a safeguarding nightmare. They allow men to concel their sex. They also confuse politicians who simply dont understand them.

Who would have thought this?!!!!!!!!

Only 3 published comments in response to article saying how brilliant the writer is ....

This has been gone over so many times.

A GRC makes a man a "legal woman" but does not make them the same as biological women.

The protected characteristic of Sex mean that only those born female are protected by the characteristic of Sex.

And as I said up thread the Judge pointed out that in fact their ruling made it clear that those with a GRC could feel they had lost out.

But that is only because thanks to Stonewall etc., they never were biological females but had been led to believe they should be taken as such.

Those with a GRC have rights to change passport etc.. And not be discriminated against for being trans gender.

And just to repeat again, one of the reasons the Supreme Court ruled ie confirmed that sex means sex, is that to not do that would mean that sex would be the only protected characteristic that is undermind by another.

And yes in the past many of us have asked what it the point of a GRC. Apart from being a "win" for campaigners on gender dysphoria, it is little more than telling people you have had surgery to alter your body, or are on the "pathway" to doing that. (So far 10,000 in total in the UK)

Added to which it is now basically irrelevant as all the campaigning and shouting is about those who "self identify" - who aren't covered by any part of the law.

Although they have been taken into account by the EHRC guidelines in saying that "gender neutral" toilets should be provided.

Which you would thought that people who say they are part of that "identity" would be celebrating.

But of course aren't, as the main purpose of the campaign IS to infringe on women's sex based rights.

It's impossible to have "single gender spaces" - there are at least 60 genders (I lose count)

A gender recognition certificate recognises gender, not sex. It enshrines a transwoman's right to use Mrs/Miss as a title and that sort of thing, but it doesn't change the person's sex in contexts where what sex you are is actually important.

The Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment means that a male person who has a feminine (or any other non-masculine) gender identity must not be treated any less favourably than a male person who has a masculine gender identity. Must not have any less access to employment, housing, services etc than would be the case if dressing and presenting as male.

As it is also the case that female people must not be discriminated against compared to male people, and must not have any less access to employment, housing, services etc than would be the case if they were male, this is fundamentally the same in terms of prevention of discrimination as "being treated as a woman" in almost all circumstances - ie where the sex of the individual is (or should be) immaterial.

In circumstances where the material fact of the sex of the individual is important and relevant, the sex of a trans individual remains the same as it was at birth. However, service providers will in many such cases need to provide a unisex alternative provision because while they cannot pretend they are offering a single sex service while making exceptions for some people of the opposite sex, they also shouldn't require trans individuals to use the option that is provided for their birth sex if that would cause either them or other service users unacceptable distress - the SC ruling confirmed it would be discriminatory to leave trans people excluded from both options if only 2 options exist.

I dont agree, but what is the point of GR if it isnt about being treated as the opposite sex?

The PC of GR is definitely not about being treated as the opposite sex. It's about GR which as changing sex is impossible means only making yourself look like the opposite sex. Most trans identifying men look absolutely ridiculous & nothing like a real woman. If there wasn't a PC of GR then employers could legitimately refuse to employ TIMs because they found TIMs ludicrous & distasteful.