To think that Labour have just shot themselves in the foot?

[Redrosetat]

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760?s=19&t=wqgtbWPG_X1xZDMhuF871A

‘Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.

Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

@Keir_Starmer is terrified of debate on safeguarding & his MPs actively work to ignore the concerns of constituents’

With an adjustment to the EA to clarify. He’s said that.

This is incorrect

Maybe I should write it in the way the poster prefers This. is. Incorrect.

It has not been confirmed that they will propose this as the mechanism

No one has confirmed anything; and in any case, political parties don't have to abide by the policies in their manifesto so its all meaningless.
We are being strung along with threats and promises.
They all had a chance to sort this put on Friday, and chose to waste the time instead.

Yes I thought the same!

I'm sorry but where have you seen anything that suggests that 'only the Tories care about women' on this thread?

I think that what the Labour party actually said was that they thought that no adjustments to the Act were necessary? But if anyone can prove they have said something categorical that recognises that it IS necessary to amend the Act I would really like to see it.

At the moment it is impossible to exclude any male with a GRC from female single sex spaces because they are 'legal women' - there are some very limited exceptions to this, therefore were service providers to attempt to prevent legal women from entering women's single sex spaces they would be able to claim discrimination under the Act (as currently drafted by the previous Labour Government) because they have the benefit of the protected characteristic of both sex and gender reassignment. This is a consequence of the Haldane judgement. Add to that no male can be asked for a copy of the GRC so it's de-facto self ID.

So where Labour talks about spaces for biological women, if they intend that to mean biological women excluding the these legal women they need to amend the Act.

You would think, in the light of all of the women who are asking for this clarification they would just clarify it (if it is indeed the intention of Labour to make these amendments).

I presume they are currently doing some significant fence sitting trying to appease both the TRAs and women. Neither should be satisfied with what they are currently saying because it's not at all clear.

I actually just think you are being extremely rude.

If Starmer doesn't mean what he said he could just say so. You would think that given that major news outlets have reported the same interpretation as mine that he would want to tell readers/ potential voters that we have all misunderstood his meaning.

I've been out for the day, have we had any news as to why the Equalities Minister failed to attend the important debate on Friday, or why she hasn't made government time available for such a piece of legislation?

Or has it all been, look over there?

You would think, in the light of all of the women who are asking for this clarification they would just clarify it (if it is indeed the intention of Labour to make these amendments).

I presume they are currently doing some significant fence sitting

Sadly Labour are doing more than fence sitting now, they are actively avoiding discussing the issue. On doorsteps, in letters and in Parliament itself.

Alarm bells (not that they were needed).

I didn’t. I posted a newspaper report which you said was out of date, but unless I’ve missed it you didn’t post a link to back that assertion up. Apologies if I did miss it.
I take exception to ‘defensive’ and ‘posting style though. Seems a bit of a PA attack on me to be honest.

It’s all over the place. Maybe implied on here, but all over the site. Attacking Labour seems to me to heavily imply the Tories are and will enable - which is far from the case.

He’s said he will. I think a reasonable position is to assume he means that until there’s a written statement to say so or the manifesto is published. You seem willing to take way more on trust from the Tories.
And do stop with the PA nonsense, eh?

It was a discussion that was never likely to happen as has been explained previously. Tell you who has had a chance to sort it out over the last 14 years? The Tories with their massive majority. Why not have a go at them?

Yes good idea you could have avoided the usual reliance on insults to start. Would have been better

But no there is no current evidence on what the legal mechanism will be from Labour

‘Supporting’ another party’s policy is not the same as proposing policy.

And that’s even if that position still stands after subsequent statement where there was no mention of the legal approach but defending the act

We’ll see. They will eventually have to propose how they’ll do it but to say you know now isn’t correct.

Attacking Labour seems to me to heavily imply…

i honestly don’t think that saying labour is shit at this one thing is attacking labour

why can’t they be shit at something?

it can’t possibly be that they are awesome at all things even if you are a party member

Sorry, not reading that until you clarify the insults I’m supposed to have started with. Pretty sure I’ve insulted nobody (except maybe the Tory party and its parliamentary contingent). Care to share?

Yes it’s top level avoidance

I hope we hear what the actual legal approach is before the GE

If people were not so defensive over how no bad thing can be uttered about their party maybe they would change this one thing and women / children would benefit

If major news outlets have made the same erroneous deduction as you have I can’t find it, despite assiduous Googling. Maybe you can help me out? He didn’t say what you maintain he did.

What he said was We’ll cut NHS waiting lists for LGBT+ people waiting for urgent physical and mental health care. Nothing about putting them at the top of the queue or prioritising them.

It’s really not being rude to point out that there’s no proof of your assertion and that the source you provided doesn’t back you up.

An accurate description I think of the approach of the current Equalities Minister to this matter.

It’s interesting to hear back from posters on hear who have tried to engage on this issue on the doorstep with Labour candidates

Likely briefed to avoid it, avoid it in parliament and avoid direct questions on which spaces and how

All part of the ‘no one’s talking about it’ campaign which is helpful for women who care about sex based rights… not

Right so if someone said ‘we will cut waiting lists for children’ then that actually means they will cut waiting lists for everyone

’we will cut waiting lists for women’ means we will cut waiting lists for everyone

i am obviously delighted that they will be cutting waiting lists for everyone but why didnt he say that

Because he was addressing an LGBT audience so specified they were included.
yes, includes everyone. Including them. He wants that group of people of which he is addressing to feel listened to and heard. He’s making it personable.no different to then addressing an over 75 age group of people and talking about how wait lists for them will be shorter.
he’s trying to win votes. That’s the whole point. That’s what they all do.

Well of course they are included

thats what ‘everyone’ means

but i see your point, although i still think ‘we are going to reduce NHS waiting lists’ would have been better, and easier for him to remember …more of a soundbite

Exactly. It’s not particularly difficult, is it?

I’d say it comes down to which lobby groups hold the most persuasion post GE - which can be indicated by who is being promised stuff

If they are males over women it won’t help women who care about their sex based rights