Anyone actually excited about a Keir / Labour govt?

[roarrfeckingroar]

I'm typically a Tory voter (one nation Conservative, just right of centre, nothing radical) and gender critical, so I'm wary of a Labour government. I worry they'll leave the country worse than it is now.

However, I absolutely agree we need a change. Things can't get much worse, can they? Idiots like Boris and Truss have made a mockery of what I understand of the Conservatives - namely economic competence - and I can't vote for them this time. I don't know who I will vote for.

Listening to LBC this evening, I hear a Labour MP talk about how Starmer is offering an "exciting programme" of change and I just don't buy it. Maybe he will he better, maybe he won't, but my real question is is anyone genuinely excited about Labour, or just looking forward to the back of the Tories?

i find the trans debate interesting as Eastern will never ever criticise the Tories or ask the question of the Tories that she asks of Labour.

e.g there is nothing currently, after 13 years of tory Govt, that prevents Izzard from going into a female loo.

Apparently that doesn't matter now but will matter a great deal if Labour win the next GE.

Surely if sex based rights really matter to her, she'd be equally critical of the current Govt? or is that just a front.

Completely disagree with this policy

I don't think you should acquire rights over someone else's property simply because you use it, with their consent, for a period.

But if it must come in, for real estate, then I would like to see it in force for every cohabitant adult, not just those who happen to have sex with the property holder. So for example, siblings living together, or adult DC with parents. Very important for IHT

It’s not really a ‘trans debate’ it’s women’s sex based rights

The only thing that will change the situation is biological sex definition in the EqA. Currently Kemi is leading it but obviously all those eager for Starmer would prefer to get rid of her before it happens

Labour oppose the amendment. If you want to know more and do the inevitable moan it’s on this thread at all read FWR. Outside these pro Labour threads there are actually informed women talking about it.

It’ll never happen. And the proposals aren’t as straightforward as that PR puff piece for a law firm indicates. This what The Times said

The previous British Labour government looked at changing the law after a 2007 report by the Law Commission recommended new rights for people who had lived together for a minimum period of two to five years.

While they would not have the same rights as married couples, courts would be able to award financial relief based on contributions to the relationship. Couples would have been able to opt out in a written agreement. The reforms were shelved by the coalition government and rejected by Theresa May in 2018.

I'm just dead against it.

I bought my own (small, cheap) House on my own. No handouts from parents, no handy inheritance.
I did 3 jobs, I worked 7 days a week for years and I'm not letting labour give some to my partner. So for this and their plans for self id I won't vote for them.

That is why I cannot vote for them. It will fuck over my family and many others, for literally no benefit.

To be fair I’m against it too but I can’t see it ever happening anyway. It would be far too complex to formulate, let alone enact.

I never thought the GRA would pass through both houses.
It did

I never thought the GRA would get us where we are now.
It has

It might be a puff piece, I've no idea, it was the first link when I googled. But it's true that labour want it to be enshrined in law.

Aus does the co habiting thing and yes money is taken based on living together

That isn’t what’s being proposed. The basis for the UK proposal - which will never happen - is financial contribution. And couples would be able to opt out.

Well, i ve lived under 13 years of the Tories and they have not protected womens sex based rights at all.

As i ve said previously, i will judge the parties on their record and their manifesto.

Badenoch, if she were serious and with the majority they ve still got, can reform the GRA, she has zero plans to do so, just hot air.

As i linked too recently, the Govt thinks the GRA strikes the right balance and they ve no plans to change it.

Pp need to read up more on what can be done with the GRA as they’re not informed or accurate

Read more than threads where it’s mostly the same pro Labour / Starmer promotion

FWR is good…

For anyone who wants facts on this issue the last place they should go is FWR. Never trust online opinions and always seek independent sources is my mantra. And thinking for yourself is always a good approach.

I am convinced that @jgw1 is a politician. Been asked a simple question about three times and failed to answer it with a straightforward yes or no.

😂 I know your take stop women even mentioning it. I’m sure if you do venture out of Labour echo chambers your thoughts won’t implode.

Thank god many do stand up, even at cost, otherwise we’d get nowhere.

@jgw1 In the case of the smaller independent schools they will have to pass the tax on. They often don’t have reserves and often keep the fees as low as they can. They also regularly offer big bursaries as well as giving staff kids a discount.

I know of a school where people paid for the small classes and SEND support but half the kids in a class were on some kind of bursary or reduced fees. Guess what. It closed a good few years ago because it run out of money. This change will finish schools like that off.

Those the policy is trying to target won’t care. I know our school is looking into a settlement option where parents can pay the rest of a child’s education now without VAT (so up to 10 years fees ahead of time). We might do that. But it’s only cos we can. It won’t be an option to many. So again an unthought consequence that can help those with, leaving those without behind.

Not excited about a man who openly supports genocide. Some might say how does this impact his ability to else our country. Well it shows he has no morals, how can you trust a man who is happy to allow a population to be starved and bombed.
he has children himself. He’s an absolute shameful person-

I am pleased to see that you know that a man with a GRC can be legally female. It is nice that you know the answer to that question, so many people seem confused by it.

I think they’re hoping you’ll change from Labour politician mode and answer a direct question with yes or no

I think the silence is the answer.
Same old labour tactics to avoid the bare facts and truth.
I’m to not recognise 51% of the electorate is rather worrying.
Yvette Cooper would have been a far stronger candidate for PM. But she had no chance given she is a real female - and Labour apparently can’t stomach female leaders it seems. A leader of colour is also lacking but we are led to believe they are ‘progressive’ 🤔

I think it's clear that @jgw1 does think a man can have a cervix. Must be gutting that Keir has flip flopped because he knew how ridiculous it all is.

I appreciate this is missing the point totally but some women don’t have cervixes. It’s been pissing me off for ages all this stuff about cervixes so I am just putting it here and will hopefully feel less annoyed about cervixes on future threads.

The plus side is no more smear tests. Ok, as you were…

It is a good point that in reality anyone can use any loo they feel like and realistically it is never going to be policed. Does that mean that we can stop this rather pointless discussion?

Fortunately a previous poster has clearly stated the answer in law to the question.

So they are not keeping the fees as low as possible for everyone, because those paying full fees are subsidising others?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if such a system could be made universal, with those who are fortunate to be better off subsidising through some kind of central revenue collection system the essential services of those less fortunate.