Did Rachel Reeves change anyone's mind re Labour?

[JohnnyMcGrathSaysFuckOff]

Apologies if there is already a thread but couldn't see one. Just got around to watching the RR interview from last week - www.mumsnet.com/news/mumsnet-founder-justine-roberts-puts-users-questions-to-shadow-chancellor-rachel-reeves there if anyone needs a link.

She seems to say quite clearly that Labour would protect women's spaces - and when Justine clarifies to ask if she means a woman on the basis of sex not gender, RR agrees that sex is the operative category!

I did not think we would see this from them. Does it change your mind?

Yep. Streeting is as untrustworthy as all the others. Sleekit.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4517347-Wes-Streeting

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4447315-Wes-Streeting-on-trans-rights

“I think that the Scottish case provides an opportunity for us to all pause and take stock. I acknowledge that women who have been raising the alarm about this have done so in good faith. We need to stop gaslighting women, stop silencing women and stop pretending that there aren’t challenges, because this male rapist in Scotland has proved that there is a challenge.”

This reads as if Bryson was the first transwoman rapist in a british prison.

Is streeting misinformed? Or 'gaslighting'?

Yeah @LizzieSiddal it's a really interesting implicit acknowledgement that a) there are some conflicts between greater trans rights (as in, the agenda set out by stonewall etc - not fundamental human rights) and women's rights; and b) that the stonewall crowd have not been fighting fairly.

I find Streeting fascinating. He reminds me of Blair, in good ways and bad ways!

I think the fundamental divide here is between people like me, who need someone like Streeting (and Cooper and Reeves) to take away the bad taste of Lammy so that we can start supporting Labour again, and people who are so utterly fed up with labour that they don't want to support them again (and people who never supported labour in the first place). The latter groups won't be convinced by anything other than a full reversal, which is a legitimate viewpoint but will simply never happen IMO.

I stand by my previous post about what Streeting said.

He doesn't say the women were right. He implies by the words "in good faith" that women are genuine but wrong.

And the "challenges" he speaks of. Labour will barge ahead with self ID making tiny tweaks here and there in order to say they are dealing with the bits the public finds unpalatable enough to make an electorally damaging fuss about.

Every other genderist nonsense, they'll enable.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts.

I agree, on balance I just don't trust WS. He doesn't fully want to get it. He is doing "being kind" to women to make us shut up.

I think RR is on a different page but whilst I don't.on balance distrust her, I do mistrust Labour's willingness to let her views predominate over others'.

So on balance, waiting for manifesto but my "vote Labour" dial is still stuck on No.

But RR isn’t in charge. And Starmer still hasn’t recanted. So it’s a no from me.

The manipulative male supremacist wants women to shut up with his latest gaslighting scam whilst pretending he isn't gaslighting.

I don't know why women aren't enraged, clearly it works, so no wonder they continue.

Labour need to find a solution, because even if they are elected the problems just dont magically disappear.

Its a big risk to assume they arent going to have to deal with a safeguarding risk involving a transwoman perpetrator. It'll be worse because starmer has been ignoring concerns and MPs like Nandy support male rapists accessing womens spaces. At this point they cant talk about unintended consequences, its starmer ignored consequences.

The fact that Starmer has even sent the letter is an interesting shift. So many posters on here have said over many years that they emailed him as constituents and got no reply.

The date of the LWD update implies that it’s a recent thing. Wonder how long he’s been sending this out for? Does anyone know?

Two interesting things: he comes closer than he ever has in public to saying what “modernising” the GRA means (ending the spousal veto, seemingly). And he gave an interview about a week ago saying that GRA reform was not a priority. I wonder if that’s a further development since he started sending the letter. If so he is responding rapidly to the discovery that the issue has no salience until the moment at which it has a lot of salience, which for many people was when they realised Bryson was far from an isolated case.

Should say - its starmer ignoring inevitable consequences.

he comes closer than he ever has in public to saying what “modernising” the GRA means (ending the spousal veto, seemingly). And he gave an interview about a week ago saying that GRA reform was not a priority.

This just demonstrates to me that labour just dont understand the problem with the GRA. They continue to prioritise the wants of the (lets face it) male yrans people, over the women who are likely to be the victims of the policies.

Worth noting what Scottish Labour did when it came to the GRR bill in Scotland:

Made lots of noises about listening to women and fixing the issues.

Put up a load of amendments that all got voted down.

Voted for the bloody thing anyway. In fact, were whipped to do so, iirc.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo - I totally agree.

But for a long time he has happily pottered along unchallenged saying “we will modernise/update/reform the GRA” allowing TRAs to assume it meant self-ID. Now suddenly he wants to clarify that, or try out a clarification with female constituents. My entirely cynical view is that they may have landed on that as a “compromise” short of self-ID.

GRA reform not a priority = we won't put it in the manifesto or talk about it in the campaign if we can avoid doing so, because we don't want to draw the public's attention to it, but we'll be barging ahead with it as quietly as possible if we get into power.

I was all for equality and representation of each group, it needs boundaries.

I am no longer keen on old/young people running things in certain instances, for example, guidance, policy and political parties or diversity hires and too many of certain groups bejng over represented whilst other groups are under represented.

The banks that collapsed was due to diversity hires rather than the best person for the job being employed.

Too many young people in publishing, politics are pushing pure nonsense and old Granddad types like Starmer and Biden are making poor political decisions. I think politicians should be limited to something like 30-60 years old.

People used to retire from certain professions earlier, such as sports then have a second career, the same should happen in certain brain taxing professions like politics and safeguarding.

I don't think labour realise they are compromising with womens rights in what appears to be secret backroom deals?

It appears to me that they are trying to keep tra happy, but not wanting to be honest or open about what they plan to do. If they are proud of the policies and think that they are fair, why be vague?

I dont think the conservatives are doing well here, but they didnt write the GRA and the EqA. I really dont trust labour to come up with policies to fix the problems they created when they havent demonstrated that the understand the issues.

but we'll be barging ahead with it as quietly as possible if we get into power.

I think the days of these laws being passed quietly are long gone. But I think you’re right that they’ll barge ahead regardless.

The risk now isnt that law can be passed without public awareness, its that they can be hidden, or wording can subtlety change.

Like anti trans conversion therapy added to anti gay conversation thearpy legislation, when the two are not the same.

Also, any misogyny hate speach laws may include 'transwomen' in the definition of misogyny.

Damn right they will. They will do what Ireland did and attach self-id to a seemingly reasonable law (conversion therapy ban, full decrim of abortion or something similar) and slide it in that way so that if you object you are a homophobe, misogynist or bigot or right wing anti-abortionist.

It makes me despair that women are grateful for a few crumbs any politician throws their way. This goes for both tories and labour. Have some standards and hold these people to account. Learn from our enemies and lobby across all parties. This isn't about who to vote for - it comes way earlier than that.

old Granddad types like Starmer and Biden are making poor political decisions. I think politicians should be limited to something like 30-60 years old.

Starmer is 60 - a generation down from Biden, and hardly an 'old granddad' type. Though I don't dispute the 'poor decisions' part.

Yes, only the Tories didn't whip their MSPs.

He is an old Granddad type to me, lots of people were called OAPs at his age, many retired at his age. Many footballers retire before 40. It's my opinion that politics and some jobs are too taxing for some and as we age there is deline, if you are offended then that's for you to ask yourself why.

Who's offended?

Football is hardly comparable.

I don't think age has anything to do with it. Biden is obviously senile. But Churchill was perfectly functional.

In fact I think the longer you are in the tooth the better a politician because you have wisdom and can see the big picture. My own theory about the moral and intellectual decline of the Labour party is that there are no sensible elders. All the leaders that made Labour electable and able to reach a wide electorate - Philip Gould, Mo Mowlam, Robin Cook - all died young. Brown/Blair burnt their legacy and authority. And Momentum/blue haired students filled the gap.