Labour ‘must fix its trans stance to win the next election’ - party needs to clarify its policies to be closer to the public’s views on the debate

[IwantToRetire]

Labour is trying to position itself as the party of the centre-ground of British politics. It has identified middle-aged, suburban women as a target demographic to win over ahead of the general election.

Labour strategists have studied polling that shows how a gender gap in voting has emerged since 2010, whereby women are on average more likely to vote Labour.

But the polling notes that Labour’s advantage is “specifically among women under 50”, while the Tories lead in women over 50.

It comes as a network of Labour activists and staffers prepares to relaunch itself next month as a think tank that will produce monthly reports on how the party can appeal to its target voters.

The organisation, called Labour Together, aims to come up with a raft of policy recommendations that reposition the party as “socially to the Right and economically to the Left”.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/18/labour-must-fix-trans-stance-win-next-election/

What is clear is that your commitment and attachment to voting Labour outweighs your concerns around Genderism. That's your call!

I live in Liverpool where hatred of the Tories is everyday bread and butter; almost a badge of citizenship; yet at the same time I know how many are deeply mistrustful of Starmer. They see him as a Blairite sell-out, and expect little from him. Liverpool has been as side-lined and ignored by successive Labour governments as much as it has by the Tory administrations.

In the recent years I have been led to question all of my former certainties and allegiances ( politically) and have to say it has been something of a liberation. i have let go of the interminable tribalism that is associated with Left/Right - and now tend to take a far more over-arching, systemic view of things.

Politics and history tends to repeat itself in broadly similar ways and patterns; nothing is really that new. I no longer see the traditional Left/right divide as being the main vector of differentiation anymore. People are now aligning in differnt ways and across differnt issues that no longer fit that typical pattern.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't under-estimate the difficulties we face as a country in economic terms; though i seriously doubt the Labour party is going to make that much difference to the situation - certainly not if you listen to what they have already said about how they would handle the economy.

I'll be spoiling my ballot - again - because i simply cannot vote for my constituency Labour MP. I cannot abide her - and she has told me in plain and simple language that she has no intention of meeting withg those of us with concerns over genderism in all its forms and has "no intention of changing her mind". Would you really expect me to vote for such a representative?

Talk about the awful Tories all you like, but personally my bond, and trust, in the Labour party is broken. In future I will judge my MP on their personal integrity and on whether they align with my main values - regardless of political party. I want my MP to speak out on matters that concern me.

Great post, NotHavingIt.

No-one is suggesting that women with 'right-leaning' politics shouldn't speak up. Not sure how on earth you got that from what I posted.

There is a huge and cavernous divide between women who are right of centre expressing their views and a bunch of literal (and male) Nazis trying to forced-team with women fighting for our rights.

I am somewhat baffled how anyone could confuse the two. Unless they were deliberately trying to muddy the waters??

And whose interest would that be in??

Not women’s, that's for sure.

Seconded.

I live on Merseyside and every word rings true

You can ask for anything you want, in whatever tone you want. It depends if what matters to you is having an actual impact, or just self-expression.

If you actually want people to listen to what you say, and change their views, particularly if they are coming from a very different starting point to you, then yes, the tough reality is you do need to take care to frame it in a way that will be clear - and palatable - to your audience.

Given Labour are going to be in power soon and we need their support to change things (and at the very least, stop them making things any worse), we DO need to consider how we present our message so they can absorb it, yes.

It might not be 'fair', but life's not fair. You can either be proudly ignorant of political realities or you can consider them.

Personally, I'm inherently suspicious of anyone advising other women to do something which will harm our cause.

We're not children - we're adults, and quite capable of thinking and acting strategically, in our longer-term interests. If you don't want to make that sacrifice, why not?? Why are you advising women to act against our best interests? Cui bono?

What are you doing with what you say that is better?

I can’t see anyone else failing here tbh. Everyone is clear and direct. If Labour have cloth ears it’s entirely their failing. Not women.

It's already amply clear to me that I'm not going to get what I "want" from any political party.

I'd settle for not being scolded like a stupid dog for not then dutifully wagging my tail at the Right People or growling at the Wrong People or for licking my own butt in the Acceptable manner.

But clearly I'm not going to get that either.

The biggest problem in British politics ATM is the lack of public trust and the feeling that politicians aren't representatives of the people they are supposed to represent.

This is actively dangerous.

The public feel that politicians are chronies of their party first. They do the bidding of the party and that's it.

Worst still there is a growing cohort of people who wanted to participate in parties but have felt bullied or pushed out by internal authoritarian dictate which crushed debate.

Our country is supposed to be liberal. Liberalism can't exist if parties act in this way.

That means we can only have government that works for it's party and not in the public interest.

Acting like you are in 1984 and saying you can't see sex like Winston couldn't see fingers is the ultimate representation of this.

The Tories do the same in different ways but it's not as blatant and in your face as claiming sex doesn't exist. That makes it an election issue precisely because it's an obvious representation of the problem with politics and the fact it's the Achilles heel of the left. The left can address this but in choosing not to, only serve to emphasise the point.

The whole thing is depressing. We are sleep walking back to authoritarianism.

Ah, I see the ol’ far right boogeyman has made an appearance, as well as literal Nazis. 👌🏻

Exactly. More of the usual finger-wagging from @xxyzz - "You'd better get this right, Women. If you don't and Labour steam-roller over all your rights, you'll only have yourselves to blame."

Can you not see what a self-own this is? You are admitting that Labour will inevitably ignore women and bring in self-ID, unless we somehow manage to convince them to listen, by making our case in some very specific way that somehow no one has tried in the last 8 years.

You make it crystal clear that Labour no longer give a toss about women's rights as a worthy goal in its own right. Women's rights are a now an obstacle that they now need to find their way round or over, to do what really matters.

And they wonder why we left.

As for the inevitability of a Labour victory, well, we'll see. The UK constituency and FPTP system means that a percentage lead does not necessarily translate into victory - it's all in how the votes are distributed.

I actually think that what 'unites' women with conservative leanings ( in terms of wanting to protect the dignity and integrity of sex based groupings) and some of those on the far right is the issue of appropriate boundaries. Even if they view and approach the issue of boundaries in different ways from each other.

As I see it I think one of the contemporary new alignments is between those who want no boundaries/open borders/free movement of all people and those who want to retain boundaries/control over access/regulated movement of peoples.

People on the open border/no booundaries side are also 'aligning' with all sorts of special interest groups with different agendas to themselves. So you have female SNP ministers standing in front of placards which say "KILL TERFs" while at a rally; and adjacent to young men who in their leisure time like to wear nappies and dress up as little girls in the name of free sexual and gender expression.

To the the no boundaries/ no segregation people - boundaries are seen as inhibiting to individual freedoms; they are seen as restrictive, inhibiting and imprisoning - whilst to the boundaries/controlled access/regulated movement people, boundaries are a symbol and a necessity of a healthy organism which seeks to regulate itself for its own optimum health.

Ironically, the SNP are in favour of creating a new border for themselves; one which will distinguish their indvidual national integrity from that of their neighbour; and those who want to reatain appropriate boundaries in the form of single sex spaces and services and sports tend also to be favour of gender fluidity and personal expression ( not rigidly confined to socially acceptable performances, presentations or expectations of gender).

So it is all horses for courses really

Indeed. We're always tone policed (often by other women ironically).
Did Labour politicians "take care to frame it in a way that will be clear - and palatable - to your audience" when they called women rights hoarding dinosaurs, stated that it shouldn't be said that only women have a cervix or insist that women who refuse to undress alongside random males are bigots? Of course they didn't. It's abusive and disrespectful and they're now getting the furious pushback that should have happened years ago.

All this is an assault on women and children's rights and safety and demands that we simperingly plead for understanding won't wash.

That's interesting! I wonder if we've met?

There’s a lot of irritating and shocking stuff around. Being called turds / shit. The image of BK on another thread. Decapitate them. Dinosaurs and so on

But telling us we’re not saying the right things takes the biscuit.

What is that poster actually doing that is superior anyway.

I sense that the Labour party, and the Left in general, is also prepared to sacrifice the safety and dignity of women when it comes to their stance on 'Islamophobia' and on their approach to certain types of migration.

Ayan Hirsi Ali has written in 'Prey' of how whole areas in certain european cities have become no-go zones for women, on account of the large number of uneducated, often illegal, migrant muslim men who now reside there, and who treat local women with total disdain and far worse. She claims the Left tends to defer to and prioritise the rights of such migrants over the rights of indigenous women.

Muslim women ( and other religious women), meanwhile, have been neglected by the Left when it comes to the issue of single sex spaces and services. They have just not been considered at all in the fever for trans inclusiveness.

Women always come at the bottom of the list of priorities it would appear.

It might not be 'fair', but life's not fair.

Almost inevitably followed by “suck it up”.

more back pedalling from Starmer - reported yesterday in the daily express. Not sure how it will go down with the faithful in this party, but until he sorts out his definition of women, its still fairly meaningless. But I think he's starting to read the room that the general public aren't behind self id.

Keir Starmer says Labour has a 'very clear position' on how to balance the rights of women | Politics | News | Express.co.uk

Interesting wording - I searched for another source and found articles from a year ago saying Boris (PM) has "a very clear position"!!

No 10, meanwhile, said Boris Johnson believes trans people should be treated with “maximum possible generosity and respect”.The Prime Minister has “a very clear position” on trans rights, his official spokesman said.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/keir-starmer-rosie-duffield-lbc-yvette-cooper-the-times-b990847.html

Anyway it's clearly a lie to say your position on women's rights is 'clear' if you are demonstrably unclear about what a woman even is.

In quotation marks on that site “I think there are lessons from Scotland and the primary lesson is that changes which don’t carry public confidence are almost certainly not the right changes.”

Almost certainly? Woolly and wishy-washy as always. Still, keep going, eh, Keir? You might get there in time.

So he knows there’s an issue but not there on clarity.

Blimming heck talk about s l o w

Well we’ve been doing our part. Getting the issue out there

The comments on the Express article are interesting. The message that Labour don't know what a woman is has been heard, loud and clear.

Sir Keir said Labour has a “very, very clear position” on how to balance the rights of women and self-identifying trans people.

excellent, I will look forward to hearing about it

I'm currently watching Simon Schama's History of Now on iPlayer. And he's just popped up with a quote by Václav Havel from The Power of the Powerless: Citizens Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe

The quote he uses is:
Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

And it comes from a longer passage about the 'post-totalitarianism':

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his or her ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

There is much in this essay relevant to the current debate that's ongoing over women's right and the clash with trans rights.

Post-totalitarian is essentially what Havel describes as dictatorial rule within a system but being less obvious and less about a traditional dictator figure which we understand and recognise as dictatorship. Instead it's embedded in a more covert / hidden way that makes it harder for the population to immediately identify but is no less hard for the population to resist because it's embedded into the bureaucracy of the system.

What's fascinating about this essay is how it talks about the bureaucracy of the system being how it exerts the power of conformity and stops dissent. In other words it makes it easier to control people because they have no choice.

For example: if you don't use pronouns you become 'marked'. If you become marked you have to demonstrate your loyalty. If you don't demonstrate your loyalty you aren't selected. If you don't repeat the right phrases you are heretic and further you don't belong in the party etc etc. We see it playing out with cancel culture generally but it's particularly interesting in the context of political parties themselves.

Schama's observation in the programme (episode one on truth and democracy) the ongoing relevance of this phenomena in a post truth world is very much spot on.

Trump did it. But we are also definitely seeing examples on the left.

This is the point. It comes from neither left nor right. It is a authoritarian v liberal thing.

We need to remember that the political spectrum is made up of four areas, not the two that the politicians in this country want to reduce matters to because it allows the manipulative narrative of 'you are either with us or against us'.

In this sense the liberal left and right SHOULD be united on this and that's a GOOD thing. You would also expect to see the illiberal authoritarian left pitted against the right - from the far right to the liberal right because that's the normal left v right thing too. The thing is that the illiberal left is terrified of the unity of the liberal left and right so the only tool in the box they have is to try and tar the liberal left.

Cancel culture and political parties barring women / making it difficult to raise concerns from within their system is very much in line with the premise of the essay.

If you want to read more on this
https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23

I would firmly argue that Starmer is running a risk on this - if people can see through what's happening and see that there is still structural dictatorship and authoritarian bureaucrat control over behaviour in political parties and key social institutions which political parties have significant control over (eg unions and charities in the case of Labour). And I do think people, many of whom are leftist women who have actively been shut down and excluded from speaking truth to power, are seeing this.

This opens the door to the right - which includes the authoritarian right - because of the pushing of the 'either with us or against us' narrative which is done by the illiberal left itself AND the right (as a whole) for its own agenda.

The problem is authoritarianism. But authoritarianism exists on BOTH the left and right.

The 'nazi facist' jibe coming from the illiberal left, needs to be seen in this context. It's a bit like the Stalinists shouting at Nazis and complaining about how appalling the other is. Neither is good. We shouldn't aspire to be either in a liberal democracy. If we want to use WWII era analogies we should be more like Atlee and Churchill arm in arm against this bullshit.

I would encourage people to read Havel's essay mentioned above and the points and principles he makes as it ties in with the point I've been making on MN for some time about our loss of liberalism (I don't give a flying fuck if you are from the right or left or centre on this) and how power is moving away from grass roots towards a top down approach in the UK. It's not restricted to this particular issue of women's rights but it certainly isn't 'a minor fringe issue' either. It's about the very dynamic of control without participation and consent within party politics. And that's not ok.

Labour are not alone in this. The SNP is currently imploding because the bureaucratic fabric that had central control of the party has suddenly just collapsed and more voices are being heard (still a long way to run on that). Meanwhile the Lads federal system allows the same thing by the use of small cliques which hold control of various branches of the party (the number of people actually involved is small with some of these people in multi cliques). The Conservatives do it by other more traditional means - who gives the biggest donations and was mates with you at school for example.

It's all very depressing.

👍