Telegraph - Keir Starmer: Pro-trans laws are needed across UK

[ResisterRex]

At first glance, just (just!!) a rehash of his video from last year. Which said what it said. But there's this:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/23/keir-starmer-pro-trans-laws-needed-across-uk/

"Asked by The Telegraph about the leader’s comments to Pink News, Labour confirmed that he stood by plans to reform the GRA.

A party spokesman said: “All political parties agree that the process needs modernising. A future Labour government will consult on what that looks like, while upholding the Equality Act and maintaining single-sex spaces.
“Labour has a strong and proud record of standing up for women’s rights. Our commitment to them is unrelenting.”
Trans rights have become a key electoral battleground in the USS_ and are expected to be similarly important in the UK at the next general election."

Do all political parties agree the GRA needs updating? The Tories just made it easier to get a GRC, and they've not said they plan to do more.

Once again the "maintaining single sex spaces" rhetoric. But next to the Haldane judgement? Come on.

I suspect the little dear still thinks he can fudge it. Kellie-Jay is going to stand against him in his constituency so he's going to have to face it.
Labour doesn't have a brilliant record if we are to required to think about LGB rights with T demands. It was the Tories that brought in equal marriage.

Labour may well win. It’s not a definite either way.

But yes this issue has potential to take hold in the media - whether people who support Labour like it or not.

Many women do care and it’s grown over time as more become aware - I doubt it will go away without us feeling heard.

As for ‘trans movement’ in pp we are discussing women’s rights on here.

Yep this is me desperate for a left leaning party to sort themselves out so I have a political home.

Because women matter.

Because almost every other crisis will be fixed when men become women.

Massive vote loser, no way I will vote for this evil

I don't understand this. Why is wanting to prevent predatory men from having access to vulnerable people an act of bad faith?

I live in what was a safe Labour seat although the combined vote for Tories and Brexit party last election was more than the Labour winner. The MP is that n the wrong side in a local planning debate too. He's also a Kool-Aid drinker. Or a coward at saying anything other than the TWAW party line. It also has a sizeable Muslim population. I am assuming the issue of protecting single sex spaces is particularly important to the majority of them for their older female relatives.
Labour can still fuck this up. Even with the incompetent corrupt Tories we have.
To win the election, it needs to be a total landslide to overturn 80 seats. It can still be lost.
I predict he's saying this bullshit to keep the TRA babies quiet. Westminster will intervene, or talk about intervening, over the Holyrood self-ID bollocks. There'll be more sunlight and he'll see the public mood. And "reform " will be kicked into the long grass.

@jgw1 I find the comparison of cutting taxes with putting male sex offenders in prison with women, or encouraging children to make life-altering changes, grotesque.

Since you're into playing games, you may wish to familiarise yourself with Labour and selections for Rother Valley, to see what they think of the child grooming scandal all these years on.

I predict he's saying this bullshit to keep the TRA babies quiet. Westminster will intervene, or talk about intervening, over the Holyrood self-ID bollocks. There'll be more sunlight and he'll see the public mood. And "reform " will be kicked into the long grass.

This may be right. Still not good enough now though. Still send the message women and children don't count. Don't forget his MN web chat where he said children shouldn't have medical interventions if their parents don't agree - thereby green lighting transing the gay away.

He can't not understand it. As he loves to tell us, he was DPP! Which surely involves a lot of reading at speed and grappling with complex issues.

The message is that ignoring it and women are collateral damage, is OK. It's not.

Labour introduced civil partnerships in 2004. The Lib Dems were the driving force behind the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act.

More Tories voted against the act at its second reading than for it.

But please don't let facts get in the way of supporting the Tories.

I think he’s using us as guinea pigs to see how it goes up here. He’s got two years to sit back and watch before he decides his position for the next election. If I’m right, it suits his purposes to sit back and quietly watch from the sidelines.

If Starmer does not clarify a Labour position, it is inevitable that others will suggest what that position might be.

Don't forget that Scottish Labour MPs were whipped to support the SNP.

Yes they were. The idea that Labour don’t have a view on this has been shown as untrue in Scotland. Labour views differ from Tories on this.

I saw Rayner simping to camera on Transgender Day of Remembrance. Don't kid yourselves - these people will tip us all the way in. And they're the alternative to the shambling corruptathon of the current government.

I find it grotesque the way the current government has so grossly underfunded our prisons that it is unsafe for anyone to be in them.

What should occur before a trans woman or indeed anyone else goes into prison is a risk assessment that considers whether there is any particular risk to them (there will be significant risk to a trans women in a male prison) or other prisoners (there likely is if a man is in a female prison). The results of that risk assessment should determine where they go. Whether there is the funding available for the process to happen properly is a different question.

As for Rother Valley, are you refering to the ex parliamentary candidate who was formerly a councillor?

Are you suggesting that Keir should interfere with the running of the Scottish Labour party?

Sorry my post got cut off - I was making the point that at the moment there are far more important things for the leader of the opposition to be discussing that affect all human beings. I keep making the point on this topic that trans people are human beings and ONLY when all human beings are cared for, taught, paid a decent living wage should any attention be given to the poor old trans people who suffer so much. They are so far down the scale of needing any special measures and yet time and time again their needs are put before others and this is before we examine the tragic effect their 'needs' have on adult human females.

Things perhaps like help with energy bills, that the leader of the opposition has been raising for a year, and which the government voted down an opposition day motion offering help to everyone with 11 1/2 months ago.

This is why I can not vote Labour- women’s rights when lost are gone forever.

I can't vote for Labour ever again for two reasons. Keir had a beer and Jeremy Corbyn.

It’s a shame Labour supporters go for the ridicule but I hear you.

It’s an important issue for women.

Good way to lose an election despite holding all the cards.

Exactly!

Despite the absolutely woeful performance of the Tories right now, there is hardly huge storming support for Keir Starmer or the Labour Party either.

So why on earth would they be continuing to double down on something that they have seen in Scotland has caused party division, has massively alienated a core voting demographic and is potentially a huge legal headache?!

Love it.

I agree with the poster who pointed out there's nothing new in either article. I don't think the story here is that Starmer's doubling down, I think it's that the Labour party in England are keeping very quiet about an event I'd have expected them to loudly approve - e.g. I've not seen a single Labour front bencher tweeting about Scotland these last couple of days. Why I'm not sure.

And while I'm here, I don't believe Labour are heading for a huge majority - they've got far too many seats to win back plus boundary changes working against them. I've read that they'll need to win as many seats as Blair did in 1997 to get even a slender majority. And Starmer is no Blair. I could be wrong but right now, I think a Labour minority government or a formal left/centre coalition is more likely.