RLB on Marr this morning

[Cwenthryth]

He’s got it completely and is tackling her head on about signing the trans pledge. He’s quoted Jess Philips, Karen Ingala Smith and Laura Pidcock at her. She really doesn’t understand. She doesn’t even know what she signed. And now she’s just cited suicide rates. 🤦🏻‍♀️

The end of that segment of the interview was a bit of a whammy! She seemed to say that Yes, the Labour Party would overturn the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act.

I think Marr did a good job. He only has very limited time on each issue and I thought he succinctly got to the heart of the issue in an accessible manner, which is key. The excerpts he used were great, and I felt highlighted just how fucking stupid she sounded. Is she wilfully ignorant or plain stupid? Her answer to the equality act did not pertain to the equality act, just the usual trope and rhetoric we hear all the time. I cannot believe that her critical thinking skills are that impaired, it was shameful.

I didn't see it so this is only based on what I've read on here:
I'm not surprised by the career-serving cowardice.
I'm flabbergasted that a trained solicitor would admit on TV to signing a document without reading and understanding it in full.

I was really disappointed that RLB wasn't questioned more on self-ID. For instance what RLB's vision of the specifics of the self-ID process would entail. What legal rights to single sex spaces that person would then acquire. If AM decided to self ID as a woman, would AM automatically have access to all the single sex spaces currently set aside for women.

Take an actual case, for instance that of the person who was recently found guilty of upskirting - would he be allowed to self ID as a women? How does RLB think women would feel about having to allow this type of person into their safe spaces, phone in hand just innocently texting.

I think the average person needs to understand the wider implications of a self-id policy on the single sex spaces they currently feel safe in. Single sex spaces won't be worth the paper they are written on.

The message out there is that feminists are anti the poor hard-done-by and lacking-any-rights-at-all suicidal trans people. And it is really not.

At the moment she is trying to win the leadership and banking on the majority of Labour members having swallowed the same stuff she has. But if she does win (grim prospect as a new party member, but keeping eyes on the big picture), and she is seeking to convince the majority of the country to vote for a Labour government, she has to realise this is not a general election winning policy. This morning she said (paraphrasing from memory) that regardless of her own personal view, she recognised that it would be electoral suicide to have a manifesto to rejoin the EU in 5 years time, for example. Perhaps, maybe, she could understand this with removing women’s sex-based rights as well.

Angela Rayner was also on the show, and when questioned by Marr on her reasons for running for deputy leader, she said that she was fully behind RLB's leadership campaign.
If that came about, then we would have two women in the top spots who had signed the pledge.

Personally I’m surprised that Labour have chosen this hill to die on, and they surely will. A party who have been widely accused of being out of touch and who have suffered a right kicking at the ballot box chooses to further compound their problems by yet again demonstrating that they are miles out of step with the rest of the population. They didn’t have to make a massive deal of trans issues in this leadership election, it’s not exacty at the top of most peoples’ agendas, yet they chose to make a huge deal of this pledge, putting it front and centre more or less, and making themselves look not only out of touch with the priorities of most of the electorate, but revealing a complete unbidden disregard for women in the process.

I’d have thought it would be expedient for politicians to keep their prejudices submerged at all times, even if they are subtly acting them out in policy making. Labour are not only not keeping their isms to themselves, they’re shouting about them when most of their target demographic weren’t even thinking about it.

I’m pretty sure Labour’s strategy wasn’t in that document compiled by Dentons. Not only are Labour pulling these issues right under the spotlight, they are doing it when they didn’t have to, to satisfy their own insular sense of righteous wokeness. If I was a TRA I’d be furious, because rather than furthering their cause, Labour are putting it directly in the stream of disinfectant sunlight, which is completely contrary to strategic planning. Still, long may it continue. Sunlight, sunlight.

she said that she was fully behind RLB's leadership campaign.
Yup - and she gave the primary reason that she was supporting RLB as ‘because it’s time we had a woman leader’.

There’s none so blind as will not see!

I think AM did a pretty good job - although I did wish he had asked her directly what would have constituted transphobic behaviour I think she would have skirted around it. I think by putting specific quotes to her from JP and KIS and asking her if they should be kicked out was a good approach. Her answers showed she doesn’t have a clue about it and denies there is any conflict between self ID and women’s rights. Plus he did get her to say she would amend the Equality Act and implement self ID. She can’t go back on that now.

For what it's worth I don't believe the Labour Party actually chose this. I think it's more likely that they thought they'd put it to bed for now with their manifesto and that they were blindsided by that pledge. (I understand it didn't come from an official Labour group - is that correct?) But the candidates didn't have the backbone or (Starmer possibly accepted) the foresight to scrutinise it. And now Long Bailey and Nandy have chosen to double down, even though it means contradicting their own manifesto. Still a shit show and to see them so easily manipulated doesn't give you confidence.

Yup - and she gave the primary reason that she was supporting RLB as ‘because it’s time we had a woman leader’. There’s none so blind as will not see!

Well there’s the killer question waiting to be asked:

“So Rebecca/Angela, you’re for self-ID and want a woman as leader of the Labour Party, does that mean if Keir Starmer identifies as a woman tomorrow and wins the contest, you’d happily accept the Labour Party has a woman as leader?”

She seemed to say that Yes, the Labour Party would overturn the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act.

Yes she did. She was asked if she'd amend the Equality Act, because there are currently exemptions that apply to transwomen, even with a GRC. And she said yes, she wants full self ID.

I loathe this woman, so I hope she wins, because Labour led by her will never win an election.

The thing we need to watch out for is lobbyists sneaking self ID legislation through on the quiet under this tory govt, possibly while everyone's looking the other way (brexit!).

We need more from political leaders than just an obsession with holding power.

I wish starmer would self id as a woman.

Just imagine that

Keir should do a Zuby, and just identify as a woman on the day of the leadership election. That way the Labour Party can say they elected a woman leader for the first time, Rayner gets to be deputy to the woman leader she wants and Long-Bailey gets to see the benefits of self-ID in action and can cheer the silver lining to her own personal loss.

Amending the EA to allow self-id...
Why is it only self id into the protected characteristic of sex? Why is there no demand to self id with a different race, religion or disability?

Why oh why don't interviewers question their interviewee on the impact of self id on safeguarding?

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000fk19/the-andrew-marr-show-16022020 42 mins 30 seconds in. Just watching now.

I think Keir is hedging his bets, keeping his powder dry, seeing which way the wind blows.
Would I trust him?
No.

If I was a TRA I’d be furious, because rather than furthering their cause, Labour are putting it directly in the stream of disinfectant sunlight, which is completely contrary to strategic planning. Still, long may it continue. Sunlight, sunlight

Completely agree. This was not in the 'stealth plan.'

A spectacular fuck up.

My goodness me, she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is she? Thank you, Andrew Marr.

“So Rebecca/Angela, you’re for self-ID and want a woman as leader of the Labour Party, does that mean if Keir Starmer identifies as a woman tomorrow and wins the contest, you’d happily accept the Labour Party has a woman as leader?”

It's such a monumentally incoherent mess. The density to the lack of logic is breathtaking.

Talking about 'women' in exactly same breath as claiming men are women.

And still expect to be taken seriously!

...if Keir Starmer identifies as a woman...

We shall all address him as Dame Sir Kiera Knightly

The only thing making these politicians talk gibberish is money. That's how easily bought they are. If i had a spare £1 million i could make RLB and LN declare that night is day if i was so inclined. Cheap, easily bought liars the lot of them. And they wonder why public faith in politicians is so low.

I so wish that interviewers would insist on clear definitions. What is a woman? What exactly is meant by self-ID? What constitutes transphobia?

Any interview running that course will inevitably expose the contradictions and absolute unworkable lack of logic.