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.

absolutely this. Taxes, cost of living, innocent until proven guilty, a fair hearing before being hung out to dry, the NHS, public services, trade deals, pensions, equality of law, county lines gangs, child abuse, criminality, smart motorways, carbon emissions and yes IMMIGRATION whatever your views on it.

Things like this affect EVERY UK citizen.

we have so much work to do before we start looking in such depth into such a left field issue that affects so few people.

No law, no legislation, no amendments, no bills, NOTHING can go forward until the parties have the guts to define what a woman is.

Single sex? Means NOTHING if you include males under the "woman" classification.
Until the word "woman" is DEFINED and protected - NOTHING is safe.

Who will have the guts to do it though?

The sole reason that the amendment to that effect was not supported in the Scottish parliament is that it would have strayed very obviously into areas that are not devolved matters. Those putting forward the amendment knew that and the only reason they put forward the amendment was to wreck the bill, nothing to do with women's rights which like the rights of everyone except their rich mates the Tories are not the least interested in.

In The Times:

Tories plot to put Sir Keir Starmer on the spot over gender law

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/75f5eb6a-83a3-11ed-ad30-7dcf2f901c3f?shareToken=9d0a97d860381874a09091599678c769

""It would lead to a debate in Parliament that would be very interesting for Sir Keir Starmer,” a senior government source said.

A second added: “It is not transphobic to support women’s rights – a fact lost on the Labour leader. Starmer is ignoring legitimate safeguarding concerns. He owes women an explanation on how their single-sex spaces will be protected.”

Last night, a source close to Starmer said Labour’s reforms would not seek to reduce the age limit from 18 and that the party remained committed to maintaining exemptions in the Equality Act for single-sex spaces. They also pointed out that Labour MSPs tabled amendments to the Scottish legislation, although these were unsuccessful."

Thanks for the share.

‘They also pointed out that Labour MSPs tabled amendments to the Scottish legislation, although these were unsuccessful.’

And they still voted to push it through!

This article was a chance - you'd think - for a statement from Starmer. They'd have asked, surely. And yet...

Rather highlights why Tories are interested in the issue doesn't it. What is important to them is making the Leader of the Oppositions life more difficult because they are so devoid of positive policies and direction it is all they are left with. No indication that the Tories think it is an important issue that they have a deeply held belieft about.

The article was an excuse to bash Starmer because he is a threat to the cosy tax avoiding benefits that the propreiter of the newspaper and the newspapers senior staff enjoy as a result of supporting the Tory party.

Starmer will have to face it eventually even if he is the King of waffle and fence sitting.

Then the media will do what they do to anyone who denies biological reality.

So he’ll have to make up his jammed mind.

As opposed to Labour whose job it is to try and make the Leader of the Oppositions life more difficult as well and yet they are walking off the field, leaving an open goal?

The Tories may indeed only superficially care about the issues raised for their own benefit, but they are miles ahead of Labour who have made it clear their party line is completely against the issues raised and have actively voted against women's safety and child safeguarding.

Since when was it the job of the government of the day, to make the leader of the opposition's life nice n cushty?? 😂

The Tories changed their minds, or at least they've shut up those who are pro-TRA. I can remember when the only Tory prepared to give a platform to women was David T Davies - and a whole lot of recrimination he got over that.

I want to see exactly what Labour and the Conservatives propose in the their manifestos before I write either off on Women's Rights because I don't trust the Conservative party at all on this, given their stance a few years ago.

@jgw1 ”The sole reason that the amendment to that effect was not supported in the Scottish parliament is that it would have strayed very obviously into areas that are not devolved matters”

Aye right. The “sole reason” eh? No. It was not supported because the SNP high command will not tolerate anything that questions gender ideology. Aided and abetted by the Scottish Greens. Did you even listen to any of the “debate”? Maggie Chapman’s objections were pretty clear and they weren’t to do with the niceties of constitutional protocol.

Exactly
If they had wanted to exclude sex offenders from using self ID they would have drafted the bill with that in or made their own amendment
What they have done is unforgivable

Ultimately, if the Tories are the only ones opposing this stuff, it doesn't really matter why they're doing it.

Is it really too much to ask for one party on the political left or centre to give a shit about women?

I think he means 'Our commitment to them is unrelentingly poor'
Total hypocrites in my former party.

Yep I am a Tory voter now. If Labour did change policy I wouldn't believe them. At least the Tories have allowed MPs their own views on gender identity woo and that is why it has been possible to get them to roll things back.

this is why I can’t vote Labour. I had such high hopes for Keir originally but it’s all turned sour.

The protections offered under the 2010 equality act are enough for trans people .

He just doesn't want to do difficult stuff does he?
It seems to be more important to him and to many on the left to seem fair minded and kind, than to actually lead on difficult stuff. He is more interested in looking decent than in doing what is right. 'It is harder to stand up against your friend than it is your enemies'. He wants left leaning people (but only activists who he mingles with, not real people) to like him.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11572439/Westminster-government-weighs-blocking-Scotlands-controversial-Gender-Recognition-Act.html

Inevitable. The Tories will want to stop/modify this legislation for right or wrong reasons. (My own view is that Rishi would prefer to ignore Nicola rather than get into a fight with her, but since she has picked the fight he cannot walk away.) But whilst there it is a good chance to put the spotlight on Keir/Labour on a issue they clearly find uncomfortable.

The process suggested by the DM is interesting. Westminster blocks, Nicola takes legal action.

FWIW I think Conservatives for Women suggest about half the current Tory MP have been willing to confirm they are GC, and presumably others have not given the issue much thought. Inevitably there are some notable exceptions who are steadfastly TWAW, and three Scottish Tory MEPs voted with the SNP. Yesterday the DM suggested that around half of Labour MPs are uncomfortable with the current Labour position. If Starmer would cease to treat the issue as a party political one, and drop the whip, we would be fine. Parliamentary votes would more closely reflect public thinking and concerns. He will be reluctant to do this as it would cause him problems in relation to young party activists.

Its popcorn time. As well as knocking Labour off the fence, a high profile debate should further open eyes to the effectiveness of Stonewall's transgender lobbying, leaving us with something most people really don't want. Perhaps putting an end to Rainbow washing and cause questions to be asked about the focus of the EDI industry.

My local Tory MP has made TWAW-leaning statements in the past.

I’m hoping that’s just because that was the ‘safe’ thing to do (which would make him an opportunist and a coward, but hey ho) rather than some deep seated conviction on his part. I’ve no love for him or the party, but I’d hold my nose and vote Tory, for as long as they’re promising to keep this nonsense at bay.

(I‘m under no illusion that the many MPs that have only recently seen the light will flip back to their old ‘be kind’ parroting, if they stop seeing an advantage in it).

Pater, a lot will simply not be interested. I recently bumped into my local and Independent Councillor, who is youngish, effective and sensible. He agreed with me but he could not say this publicly. He then started a rant about a fellow Councillor who used up a lot of scarce Council Chamber time taking about the need to do more for trans people. My impression was that he thought that the time should have been spent on doing more for poor people, disabled people, old people, children, homeless etc. Gender was not a hill he was going to climb, let alone die on. I think this will be true of many MPs. Each have their own interests and priorities. A few will be very engaged on LGBT, others on women’s issues and safeguarding. Most, presumably including Starmer, are just going with the flow. Hopefully a vote on, effectively, constitutional issues, won’t allow them or Labour itself, to hide.

There is no mileage at all in assuming this issue will make Labour unelectable. They are likely to win the next election solidly for many reasons including:

• Quite a few traditionally labour seats were only on loan to the Tories for the purposes of Brexit
• The Tories will have been in Government for 14 years; people want a change after that time.
• The Tories are having to deal with 'events, dear boy' and the fall-out from such events: covid, brexit, Ukraine, cost of living crisis, leadership crises etc make them unpopular.
• Labour have a leader who, though uninspiring, won't frighten the horses and who is hard to make much political capital out of.

It has to be assumed that Labour will win. We have to fight based on that knowledge.

I don't think it will make Labour unelectable either, but Starmer must believe it's problematic, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to avoid talking about it. But I don't think it's the reaction from voters he's worried about so much as within his own party.

jgw1

The sole reason that the amendment to that effect was not supported in the Scottish parliament is that it would have strayed very obviously into areas that are not devolved matters.

That doesn't make the slightest sense, as the whole bill is already in a non-devolved area, hence, the Westminster Government mulling killing it.

Those putting forward the amendment knew that and the only reason they put forward the amendment was to wreck the bill, nothing to do with women's rights which like the rights of everyone except their rich mates the Tories are not the least interested in.

You can say that to your heart's content, but the amendments were put forward to ensure that rapists don't take advantage of Self ID, in order to access potential victims.