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’

Tbh, on present performance the Tories stand very little chance of winning the next GE, so people are looking to Labour, as the strongest opposition party, to judge them on what they’re going to bring to the table if they get in. If they’re lacking in any way, people might start to think it’s better the devil they know, and stick with what we have, or sway to other parties on the fringes. Labour have the biggest hill to climb, as they have to gain the trust of the electorate. This is the best chance in years that they have of actually being voted in.

None of the parties came out of today looking good.

But if you doubt's Labour's part in the filibuster then watch Steve Reed's (Lab, Croydon North) speech which ran to over half an hour and said almost nothing. At 13:13 one brave Member (sorry, don't know her name) intervened from the opposite benches to point out the importance of debating same sex spaces for women. The subtext of Steve Reed's reply couldn't be clearer. The intervening MP was also put down by the Deputy Speaker (also a woman!)

It would be great if Private Member's Bills were given proper parliamentary time and guaranteed a vote. That way, governments (and oppositions) would have to actually turn out and vote on them, not just send the filibuster footsoldiers to do their dirty work.

Mole hill?

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html

Isn't it a bit sad that Tory central office have nothing else to do but create threads on MN

Tbh I think it's appropriate. In policy terms the British public do actually seem to get more concerned about animals than people, and women aren't to some even people, so this is not surprising at all.

It would be great if Private Member's Bills were given proper parliamentary time and guaranteed a vote. That way, governments (and oppositions) would have to actually turn out and vote on them, not just send the filibuster footsoldiers to do their dirty work.

Now this I can agree with. It would mean Parliament worked harder and more efficiently. It's ridiculous that you can have commons sittings where there are only 30 people. Where I work (NHS), meetings have to be quorate to be able to take decisions, and the same should apply to Parliament. But as things stand right now we aren't in that happy situation, so we should be holding the actual government responsible for not legislating the things they and the electorate consider important.

Yes. Threatening to shoot a woman is simply considered to be "rude" in Tory minds.

That’s right. Yet it feels like they’re trying to catch defeat from the jaws of victory’s because so they need to do is to commit to to women’s (and children’s) sex-based rights. Bit they won’t. Why won’t they? It must concern their donors. I can’t think of any other reason.

Exhibit A

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/209617

"It would be great if Private Member's Bills were given proper parliamentary time and guaranteed a vote."

I wholeheartedly agree but this would mean the government of the day loses more time and as importantly control - which I guess is why it hasn't been introduced.
The ballot process alone seems a bit crazy in my view.

Yes..

PMBs are generally used to test an issue. If it's considered to be popular, the Government adopts it, perfects the bill and gives it backing by majority.

And it could have done prior to this moment very easily.

Perhaps even sadder that you think that’s what is happening. Says it all really.

To be fair, Friday’s always been constituency day and those MPs who hold them (not my about to stand down Tory, obviously) have their surgeries on Fridays. That means attendance will always be low. Private members’ bills are essentially a pointless exercise.

Neither of these things are self id. Do you understand what self id actually is?

Lobbyists too

It is a complete untruth. Please show me where Truss says that she is in favour of self id - I have clearly shown evidence of her speaking against it in 2021.

Are we onto discussing Tufton Street now?

So you keep saying. The evidence is to the contrary.

Oops wasn’t concentrating.

That’s right. Yet it feels like they’re trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, because all they need to do is commit to women’s (and children’s) sex-based rights. But they won’t. Why won’t they? It must concern their donors. I can’t think of any other reason.

Yes and lobbyists.

Couldn't the government just legislate to say it was the truth?

Surely it is even easier than legislating that a country is safe?

Please show me the evidence - you have so far failed to do so!

https://www.thepinknews.com/2020/09/22/gender-recognition-act-reform-liz-truss-announcement-self-id-trans-healthcare/

Some Labour bank rollers

https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2023/09/26/linda-riley/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-women-won-the-war-against-gender-self-id/